CHEMFAB AND ALKALIS LIMITED GNANANDHA PLACE Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PONDICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 30. 11. 2006 made in W. P. Nos. 32655 of 2005 and 5452 of 2006, filed by the appellant, challenging the No Objection Certificate issued by the District Magistrate-cum-District Collector, Pondicherry , second respondent herein in favour of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , Chennai, third respondent, for setting up a petroleum retail outlet at R. S. No. 130/3a of 21, Pillachavadi Revenue Village, Pondicherry and also to quash the licence issued by the first respondent, Joint Controller of Explosives, Chennai dated 28. 10. 2005, in favour of the third respondent.

(2.) THE case of the appellant, who is a manufacturer of caustic Soda and producers of Hydrochloric Acid, Sodium Hypo Chlorite and liquid Chlorine, is that the said Liquid Chlorine is classified as hazardous and should be kept away from potential fire sources. When the appellant Company came to know that in the adjoining site, abutting the compound wall of the appellant's factory, the proposed petroleum retail outlet was sought to be given to the third respondent, a representation was submitted to the Collector of Pondicherry , the second respondent, raising objection with regard to the setting up of the petroleum retail outlet on the ground that the Hydrogen and Chlorine stored by the appellant Company are highly inflammable and it is very dangerous to locate a petrol bunk near its factory. According to the appellant, there was no personal enquiry on the representation, however, No Objection Certificate was issued in favour of the third respondent and the 4th respondent came to be appointed as a Dealer for the retail outlet. This has resulted in filing of the writ petitions. THE first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the procedure contemplated under the Petroleum Rules, 2002 have been followed strictly and as per the Rules, and there is no provision for granting personal hearing relating to the objections raised by the appellant Company before issuing licence. THE District Collector, after referring to the application and having satisfied with the fulfilment of the requirements, has recommended for establishment of petrol bunk at the proposed site. THE further case of the first respondent is that the appellant's factory being a "hazardous establishment" functioning under various licences of Government of Pondicherry and as per various Acts and Rules, and the appellant factory is taking all precautionary measures and the State authorities are making periodical inspections. It is also stated that the distance between the storage of the liquid Chlorine of the appellant's factory and the proposed underground storage of petroleum products is 130 meters away and there is no possibility of any danger. It is, after considering the said averments made by both parties, and taking into consideration that No Objection Certificate was issued in accordance with rules and safety measures have been taken, the learned single Judge, has dismissed the writ petitions. It is, as against the said dismissal order, the present appeals are filed.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. K. K. Sasidharan , learned Additional Government Pleader for Pondicherry , appearing for the first respondent even though contends that No Objection certificate as well as licence was issued only after inspection, could not substantiate that proper enquiry was conducted, especially when an objection was raised by the appellant, who is admittedly carrying on business, since untoward incident may result in unwanted consequences.