Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

73. Form I under Rule 3 of the Factories Rules prescribes the details to be furnished for permission to construct, extend or take into use any building as a factory. Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 had already obtained a N.O.C. from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, also from the Environment Department subject to no objection by DISH, permission from the Chief Controller of Explosives, Government of India and upon fulfilment of the conditions imposed by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board in their letter dated 5th March 1994. The State Government also reserved its right to impose any additional conditions from time to time for control of pollution, if necessary.

(b) The Environment (Protection) Act. 1986

78. This Act is intended to provide for the protection and improvement of environment and for matters connected therewith. The main object of the Act, as indicated in the preamble, is to implement the resolutions of the United Nation Conference on Human Environment held at Stockholm in June, 1972, in which India is a participatory country and to take appropriate steps for protection and improvement of human environment.

79. Section 2(e) of this Act defines "hazardous substance" to mean any substance or preparation liable to cause harm to human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism, property or the environment, L.P.G. would be a 'hazardous substance' within the meaning of section 2(e) of this Act. Section 7 prohibits the carrying on of any industry which causes the discharge of any environmental pollutants in excess of the prescribed standards. Section 8 prohibits any person from handling or causing to handle any hazardous substance except in accordance with such procedure and after complying with such safeguards as may be prescribed. Detailed Rules have been made under the Act for dealing with industries with different types of emission or hazard potentials. In particular, attention was invited to the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 made under section 6 read with sections 8 and 25 of the Act. L.P.G. is a "hazardous chemical" within the meaning of Rule 2(e)(i), since it is flammable gas within; the meaning of Part I of Schedule I and is listed at Item No. 43 of Column 2 of Part II of the Schedule 2 of the Schedule. On site storage or on site transport of L.P.G. or its isolated storage or its transmissions by pipeline would be an industrial activity within the meaning of Rule 2(h) of the said Rules. Rules 6 and 7 require that the occupier of a factory shall not undertake any industrial activity unless he has submitted a written report to the concerned authority containing the particulars specified in Schedule 7, at least three months before commencing that activity, or before such shorter time as the concerned authority may agree. Rule 10 requires the preparation of safety reports containing specific information being submitted to the concerned authority. Rule 13 requires the preparation of on-site emergency plans by the occupier. Schedule 5 to the Rules appoints the Chief Inspector of Factories appointed under the Factories Act (now DISH) as the authority for implementation of directions and procedures in the Rules in respect of industrial installations and isolated storages dealing with hazardous chemicals and pipelines including inter state pipelines with regard to Notifications as per Rules 7 to 9, Safety reports as per Rules 10 to 12 and preparation of onsite emergency plans as per Rule 13. Finally, Chief Controller of Explosives, appointed under the Indian Explosives Act and Rules, 1983 is to be incharge of the enforcement of directions and procedures as per the provisions, of the Indian Explosives Act and Rules made thereunder.

82. As far as the storage of hazardous chemicals and storage of explosives are concerned, the DISH and Chief Controller of Explosives, after detailed examinations, granted their no objection certificates to the industrial activity of respondent No. 8 and respondent No. 9 and it is not our function to sit in appeal over their judgments, nor we have been shown that the approvals given by them contravene any of the provisions of any law. In fact, respondent No. 4 (Chief Controller of Explosives) is no longer concerned with the situation because respondent No. 8 has totally disconnected the two surge vessels which were the only hazards with which respondent No. 4 was concerned.

87. On 3rd June, 1997, respondent No. 8 sought Occupation Certificate and enclosed the necessary No Objection Certificates obtained from various authorities. The Occupation Certificate was refused on 9th June, 1997 as a No Objection Certificate from Chief Controller of Explosives for occupation and commissioning of the plant had not been submitted. Respondent No. 8 thereafter forwarded the No Objection Certificate of the Chief Controller of Explosives, after consideration of which a decision was taken on 1st August, 1997 to grant sanction for processing of the issue of Occupation Certificate. In the meanwhile, the petitioners had raised objections to the grant of Occupation Certificate and considering the nature of contentions urged by the petitioners, the file was reserved for the orders of the Municipal Commissioner. After detailed scrutiny of the file, the Municipal Commissioner directed issue of Occupation Certificate on 23rd September, 1997 subject to the following conditions: