AMPADIYIL GRANITES Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor. The petitioner is running a quarry and metal crusher unit for the past several years with the necessary consent/license issued by various authorities including the local authority, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and the Controller of Explosives. With a view to establish a magazine in the land where the petitioner is conducting the quarry, he submitted Ext.P5 application dated 10.11.2010 to the third respondent. The petitioner also simultaneously applied to the District Collector, Pathanamthitta for a No Objection Certificate under rule 102 of the Explosives Rules, 2008. The District Collector in turn forwarded the application to the Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta along with Ext.P6 letter dated 24.11.2010 requesting him to enquire and report whether there is any objection in granting the No Objection Certificate. After the application was submitted, the Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Kottayam issued Ext.P7 No Objection Certificate dated 3.2.2011, certifying that the Fire and Rescue Services has no objection to the establishment of the magazine. The Tahsildar, Kozhencherry submitted Ext.P8 report dated 25.11.2010 to the same effect. The District Collector thereafter considered the petitioner's application and rejected it by Ext.P10 order dated 24.12.2011. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No. 259 of 2012 in this Court. By Ext.P11 judgment delivered on 31.1.2012, a learned single Judge of this Court set aside Ext.P10 order on the short ground that before it was issued, the petitioner was not put on notice or heard. This Court accordingly directed the first respondent to pass fresh orders, after affording the petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4 an opportunity of being heard. The District Collector thereafter heard the parties and issued Ext.P12 order dated 3.3.2012, once again rejecting the application dated 10.11.2010 submitted by the petitioner for a No Objection Certificate under rule 102 of the Explosives Rules, 2008. Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P12 and seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) THE main contention raised by the petitioner is that the District Collector misdirected himself when he proceeded to hold that the petitioner did not produce the relevant documents before the Assistant Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Pathanamthitta, that the Assistant Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Pathanamthitta had in Ext.P13 letter dated 6.3.2012 informed the District Collector, Pathanamthitta that the reason for closing the petitioner's application was on account of the fact that the competent authority which could have considered the application for a No Objection Certificate to establish a magazine to store more than 500 kgs of explosives is the Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Kottayam and therefore, the District Collector erred in proceeding on the basis that petitioner did not pursue his application for a No Objection Certificate before the Assistant Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Pathanamthitta. Various other contentions are also raised in the writ petition.

(3.) I heard Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Viju Thomas, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. Ext.P12, the order impugned in the writ petition discloses that the District Collector, Pathanamthitta rejected the petitioner's application for a No Objection Certificate in terms of rule 102 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 mainly relying on the report of the Assistant Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Pathanamthitta to the effect that the petitioner did not produce relevant documents and therefore, a No Objection Certificate was not issued by the said officer. It is evident from the pleadings and the materials on record that the petitioner had applied for establishing a magazine to store explosives in excess of 500 kgs. It is also not in dispute that the authority bound to issue a No Objection Certificate in respect of such a magazine is the Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Kottyam. Ext.P7 discloses that the said officer had as a matter of fact issued such a No Objection Certificate on 3.2.2011. The District Collector was also alerted about this fact by the Assistant Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Pathanamthitta when later, he sent Ext.P13 letter dated 6.3.2012. In that letter the Assistant Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Pathanamthitta had informed the District Collector that the petitioner's application for a No Objection Certificate was closed in view of the fact that the competent authority to issue a No Objection Certificate is not he but the Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Kottayam. From the materials on record and the reasons set out in Ext.P12 it is evident that the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected on an erroneous ground and without really noticing the fact that the competent authority who should have issued a No Objection Certificate is the Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Kottayam and not the Assistant Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Pathanamthitta. In such circumstances, notwithstanding the various contentions set out in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, I am of the opinion that the first respondent should reconsider the petitioner's application for a No Objection Certificate under rule 102 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, after following the procedure prescribed in rule 103 thereof.