Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, while inviting the attention of this Court to Rule 103 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 framed under the Explosives Act, 1884, submitted that the procedure prescribed under the Rule for issuance of the No Objection Certificate has not been followed and the No Objection Certificate has been issued by the Commissioner of Police and the impugned No Objection Certificate is per se without jurisdiction as the No Objection Certificate was required to be issued by the District Magistrate, after following the procedure prescribed under Rule 103 of the Rules. It is also averred that the objections preferred by the petitioner were not considered.

9. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the record. It is trite law that the provisions of special law prevail over the general law. Section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 deals with power to make orders for regulation of traffic and for preservation of order in public places, etc. Section 31(1)(r) provides that the Commissioner and the District Magistrate in the areas under their respective charges or any part thereof, may make, alter or rescind orders for licensing and controlling or in order to prevent obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to the residents or passengers in the vicinity prohibiting inter alia blasting of rock or making excavations in or near streets or public places. Rule 103 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 which is relevant for the purpose of controversy involved in the petition is reproduced below:

10. In view of aforesaid well settled legal position that the provisions of special law prevail over the general law, it is evident that the request of the petitioner for grant of No Objection Certificate was required to be processed under Rule 103 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, after following the procedure prescribed therein. However, in the instant case, in purported exercise of powers under Section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, the Commissioner of Police has granted the permission to the respondent No.8 for excavation of the rocks that too without considering the objections preferred by the petitioner and without holding an enquiry. The impugned order is per se without jurisdiction. The impugned order is accordingly quashed.

The parties as well as the respondent No.8 and the officer authorized by the respondent No.5 undertake to appear before the Commissioner of Police on 26.06.2019. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Police shall consider the application filed by the respondent No.8 under Rule 103 of the Explosive Rules, 2008 by considering the objections preferred by the petitioner or any other aggrieved persons and deal with the issue after following the procedure prescribed in the aforesaid Rule expeditiously by a speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.