Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The petitioner has stated that a number of accidents had taken place in the area concerned due to the establishment of fire works factories, by various individuals. While so, the seventh and the eight respondents have proposed to construct fire works factories, in certain survey numbers, in Nadhikudi Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District. The petitioner has further stated that the fifth respondent ought to follow Rules 102 and 103 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, for the grant of the licences for the establishment of the fireworks factories. The fifth respondent, who is the authority concerned to issue the licences for the establishment of the fire works factories, is bound to follow the provisions of Explosives Act, 1884, and the Explosive Rules, 2008. Rule 103(3) of the Explosive Rules,2008, specifically requires the authority to verify the antecedents of the applicant, the lawful possession of the site in question, the genuineness of the purpose and public interest, while issuing licences. However, the fifth respondent had granted the licence without considering the antecedents of the seventh respondent and also without following the mandatory procedures prescribed under the law. Further, the distance between the fire works factories, to be established by the seventh and the eight respondents, are within the prohibited distance, prescribed under Rule 86 of the Explosive Rules, 2008.

6. It has been further stated that, as per Rule 7 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, no person shall manufacture, import, export, transport, possess for sale or use an explosive, except as authorised or licenced under these Rules. It has also been made clear, under Rule 115 of the said Rules, that a 'No Objection Certificate', granted under Rule 103, may be cancelled by the authorities concerned, for the reasons stated therein. However, the authorities concerned had failed to comply with the requirements of the provisions of the Explosives Act,1884, and the Explosive Rules, 2008.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further submitted that the District Collector, Virudhunagar District, has issued the proceedings, dated 25.05.2013, stating that there shall be no more granting of 'No Objection Certificates' under Rules 102 and 103 of the Explosives Rules,2008, to any person, to obtain Explosive Licences from the authorities of PESO and the District Magistrate / Additional District Magistrate for the grant of Fireworks / Explosives, within the jurisdiction of Sivakasi, Sattur and Virudhunagar Taluks, in Virudhunagar District.

9. The learned counsel had relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of W.B, (2004) 3 SCC 349, with regard to the maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation. In such circumstances, the present Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed, with exemplary costs.

10. The learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the Official respondents had submitted that the District Revenue Officer is the authority concerned for the grant of a 'No Objection Certificate', upto 15 Kilometres. He had further submitted that all the parameters prescribed in Rules 102 and 103 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, had been followed, by the authorities concerned. The antecedents and the other requirements to be fulfilled by the applicant had been verified, by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar concerned. The necessary police verification had also been made. The fire works department had also been asked to verify the requirements of safety for the establishment of the fire works factory. A public enquiry had also been conducted, as prescribed under Explosive Rules, 2008, after due publication. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits.