TEERTH SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge has been made to the order dated 15.09.2014, passed by the District Collector, Jaipur whereby the petitioner's application for grant of NOC to raise additional construction at the pre-existing explosive magazine has been dismissed on the ground that the site was at a distance of about 750 mtr. from the abadi area and no road obtain accessed thereto.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he was granted permission for operating an explosive magazine in the survey No.1202 situate at Village Dholawas, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur by the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India in the year 1998. The explosive magazine has since been in operation without any irregularity and is being run in accordance with law and prescribed norms over land converted for commercial user in 2008 under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agriculture Land for Non Agriculture Purposes in Rural Areas) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter "Rules of 2007").

(3.) In about 2013 seeking to expand his business, the petitioner filed an application to the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization, Nagpur for approval of additional construction in the explosive magazine. Approval was granted vide order dated 16.01.2014 subject to NOC from the District Authority. An appropriate application before the District Collector, Jaipur was therefore filed under the Explosive Rules, 2008. On receipt of the application, the District Collector required the SDO, Kotputli vide his letter dated 29.01.2014 to submit a site inspection report. The requisite report was submitted vide SDO's letter dated 06.05.2014 observing that khasra No.1202/1624 was in the khatedari of the petitioner; had been converted for commercial purposes on 30.07.2008; the purposed site was without any fire or traffic hazard, and despite objections having been invited from the general public with regard to the additional construction in issue through publication in the newspaper, none was received. It was indicated that there thus appeared to be no objection to the NOC sought. However vide the impugned order dated 15.09.2014 the petitioner's application for grant of NOC has been rejected by the District Collector for reasons not germane and dehors the site inspection report of the SDO, Kotputli dated 06.05.2014, submitted counsel.