Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to issue a mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4, forbearing the seventh respondent from establishing the proposed explosive magazine (Numbering 6) at S.No.898 of Chinnamarudhur Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he is owning ancestral property in Chinnamarudhur Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District and carrying on agricultural activities there. While so, he sold some of the lands in S.Nos.898, 899 and 905 of the aforesaid Village, to one M/s.Vetrivel Explosives Private Limited/eighth respondent herein, who, in turn, leased out the same to the seventh respondent. The seventh respondent started construction activities of six blocks of buildings, for the purpose of storing explosives. According to the petitioner, the said construction was made without obtaining prior approval from the authority concerned, as provided under Rules 102 and 103 of the Explosives Rules, 2008. Apprehending danger to the safety of the petitioner as well as the labourers, the petitioner raised several objections not to grant licence in favour of the seventh respondent and the same were not considered by the respondents. Hence, this writ petition.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the seventh respondent is required to locate the explosive magazine, by leaving a safety distance of 343 meters, whereas their godowns are situated within a distance of 123 meters from the land of the petitioner, which is in violation of Table-1 Schedule -VIII of the Explosives Rules 2008. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the failure on the part of the seventh respondent to obtain No Objection Certificate prior to commencement of the construction is against the relevant provision of the Explosives Rules 2008, which is sufficient enough to decline licence to the seventh respondent. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel sought appropriate direction in this regard.

4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the seventh respondent, referring to Rule 104 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, submitted that it is not mandatory to obtain No Objection Certificate prior to the commencement of the Construction and hence, there is no illegality in proceeding with construction of magazines/buildings for storage of explosives. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the Table -1 prescribed the distance of 343 meter, which is applicable for dwelling house, Government and Public building, Temple, Mosque, Gurudwara, Church or other place of worship, shops, market place, recreation and sports ground, college, school, hospital, theatre, cinema or other buildings where the public are accustomed to assemble, factory, buildings or works used for the storage in bulk of petroleum spirit, gas or other inflammable or hazardous substance, building or works used for the manufacture of explosives or articles, whereas, the said rule is not applicable for barren land as that of the petitioner herein and hence, the apprehension of the petitioner may not be proper for filing a writ petition, which is nothing but an attempt to stall the procedures to be adopted by the statutory authorities. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel sought to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 3 to 6 submitted that as per the recommendations of the District Officer, Fire and Rescue Department, Tiruppur District and the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur, the Special Officer, Kottaimaruthur Village has granted permission to construct the explosive magazines in S.No.898 of Chinnamarudhur Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District and the Sub Collector, Dharapuram has also recommended for issuance of No Objection Certificate to the seventh respondent and hence, the fourth respondent has granted No Objection Certificate on 11.12.2017 to the seventh respondent. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that no residential houses are situated nearby the explosive magazines which are constructed within the safety distance as mentioned in the Explosives Rules, 2008 and the seventh respondent requested no objection certificate only for possession of use of explosives in magazines and as such, the objections raised by the petitioner, joint explosives user association and the individuals are baseless and unfounded. The learned Additional Government Pleader also invited the attention of this Court to the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner appointed in this regard.