SHABBIRALI TAYABALI CHHATARIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed inter alia for the following relief:

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.Vyas appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dtd. 10/9/2015 produced at Annexure-A of the memo of the petition. He has submitted that the petitioner cannot be issued such communication since he is not the one who has done encroachment under Outer Safety distances specified in Form DE-2. He has further submitted that the petitioner has already filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.16392 of 2015, which is pending before this Court for removing the illegal encroachment. He has further placed reliance on Rules 118 and 128 of the Explosive Rules, 2008 (for short "the Rules") and has submitted that none of the conditions therein are violated by the petitioner. He has submitted that the Deputy Controller of Explosives, Vadodara, has no power to pass any orders and it would be the Chief Controller of Explosives, who has power to pass the orders to exercise powers of search and seizure. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned communication may be set aside.

(3.) In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Ms.Jhaveri appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that in fact the petition is not maintainable since by the impugned communication dtd. 10/9/2015, the petitioner has only been asked to file a reply and inform that in case, the reply is not filed within a stipulated period, it would be presumed that he has no explanation to offer. She has submitted that as per the provision of Rule 127 of the Rules, the respondent No.2 is empowered to issue such communication to prevent the dangerous practices. She has further submitted that even as per the terms of the license, the petitioner was required to inform the respondent authorities about the encroachment of three dwelling houses, which he has not done. It is thus submitted that the petitioner has violated the Rule 86 of the Rules and Condition Nos.2 and 15 of the license issued in Form LE-3. Thus, she has submitted that the writ petition may not be entertained.