Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It is submitted that respondents No.5(a) to 5(c) moved a representation under Rule 115 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division on the ground that the land on which go-down is proposed to be constructed is a Forest land and prayed for cancellation of NOC granted to the petitioner.

4. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 - Commissioner, Bilaspur Division has passed the impugned order without taking into consideration that the NOC was granted after due verification of the application and submission of report from the revenue authorities. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Commissioner dated 27.8.2021 before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has dismissed the appeal on the ground that it is not maintainable under the provisions of the Explosive Rules, 2008.

6. Learned State counsel representing for respondents No.1 to 4 opposes the submissions and submits that the impugned order is reasoned and sustainable, hence, the petition be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that respondent No.3 - Additional District Magistrate had no authority to grant NOC to the petitioner. In the Schedule IV(3) of the Explosives Rules, 2008, it is clearly provided that licensing authority for grant of license in the matter of use of explosives etc. shall be Chief Controller or Controller of Explosives authorized by the Chief Controller which is an authority of Central Government.

The procedure as provided under Rule 103 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 in the matter of grant of NOC has not been followed. There is clear provision for publication of notice to invite objections but no such notice was published by the District Magistrate, therefore, respondent No.5 did not have any opportunity to object in the matter of grant of NOC. It is also submitted that No Objection Certificate granted under Rule 103 can be canceled by the authority issuing the same or authority superior to it and sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 clearly provides that the remedy against the order of cancellation of NOC is by filing an appeal. In the present case, the Appellate Authority shall be the State Government. It is also submitted that the petitioner had been given an opportunity of hearing by respondent No.2 before passing the impugned order. The land in question is forest land and the purpose of land can be converted only by the Central Government.

15. It is also taken notice of that in the objection raised by respondent No.5 before the Commissioner/ respondent No.2, the fact regarding the Missal Khasra of 1929-30 was brought to the notice of the authorities for the first time and there was no opportunity for examining the same by the District Magistrate, as this fact was not brought to the notice of District Magistrate by any of the authorities concerned from whom the reports were called, hence, for these reasons, I am of this view that the order of District Magistrate granting NOC is not sustainable, however, the order of cancellation of that NOC passed by respondent No.2 is also not sustainable because the same has not been passed on the grounds that are available under Rule 115(1) of the Rules, 2008. Hence, it is found that both the orders are not sustainable. Therefore, this petition is disposed off at motion stage. The impugned order as well as the order of the District Magistrate for NOC are quashed. The application of the petitioner for grant of NOC before the District Magistrate stands restored. The District Magistrate, Korba i.e. Respondent No.1 is directed to initiate fresh proceedings on the application of the petitioner in strict compliance with the Rule 103 of the Explosive Rules, 2008 and pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law, at the earliest.