Kerala High Court · 2024

THE REGIONAL FIRE OFFICER KANNUR REGIONAL FIRE OFFICE, NEAR PRABHATH JUNCTION, HQ HOSPITAL P.O, BURNACHERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670013 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KANNUR RURAL, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KERALA ARMED POLICE 4TH BATTALION, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670567 THE PERINGOM VAYAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT PERINGOM P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN - 670353 GP SHYNIMOL ADV. O.V.MANIPRASAD, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: wp(c) No.16226 of 2023 2 VIJU ABRAHAM, J. ................................................................. W.P (C) No.16226 of 2023 ................................................................. Dated this the 11th day of January, 2024 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P10 order whereby the application submitted by the petitioner for no objection certificate has been declined by the 1st respondent.

2. Petitioner proposes to establish a small scale explosives manufacturing unit and submitted an application for licence in LE-1 as provided in Rule 102 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 (in short, “Rules 2008”). Rule 103(1) of the Rules 2008 provides that the applicant seeking to obtain such a licence shall apply to the District Magistrate with copies of site plan showing the location of the premises proposed to be licensed for issuing a certificate to the effect that there is no objection for issuance of a licence for the site proposed. Thereupon petitioner preferred Ext.P1 application for the grant of no objection certificate. Petitioner submits that all the statutory authorities except the police department have consented for the issuance of the no objection certificate as is evident from Exts.P2 and P5 to P7 and the Station House Officer, Kannapuram Police Station has submitted Ext.P8 report wherein it is reported that there is no criminal antecedents as against the petitioner, but did not recommend the grant of wp(c) No.16226 of 2023 3 no objection certificate stating that there are seven quarries, 13 fire works shops and 10 petrol pumps in the locality and if a manufacturing unit is also licensed, it will cause serious threat to the persons employed in the unit. Based on the report and after hearing the parties, a no objection certificate was declined as per Ext.P10. The relevant portion of Ext.P10 order reads as follows: “13. All the facts were verified in detail; the report of the police revealed that there is a chance of a fire hazard while handling and bringing ammunition; also, the lives of the employees working in the factory may be endangered. The nearest dwelling house, protest from the local residents, density of houses within 300 metres of the proposed site, etc. may create security issues. Also, the position of the public crematorium may lead to fire hazards and are against the conditions of related rules.

14. In the above circumstances, the application submitted by Sri.Ambujakshan. C. for a license in Form LE-1 to manufacture fireworks, not exceeding 15 kg at any one time at R.S.Nos.95/157, 95/158 and 95/159 of Perinthatta Amsom, Desom in Payyannur Taluk, is hereby rejected.” Petitioner would contend that yet another reason stated in the impugned order is that there is a public crematorium just 20 metres away from the ingredient room. Petitioner relying on Part 4 of Schedule V appended to the Rules 2008 submits that no inter-distance limit from the ingredient shed to the ingredient store, road, dwelling house and place of public assembly, etc. is provided in the case of issuance of a Form LE-1 licence wherein manufacturing is less than 15 kgs. Petitioner also refers to Table 6 of Schedule VIII appended to the Rules 2008 and contends that as wp(c) No.16226 of 2023 4 regard the raw material shed also there is no distance criteria provided to a dwelling house, protected works or out side safety distance. On the basis of the same petitioner would contend that the reason stated for rejecting the application that there is a crematorium just 20 metres away from the ingredient room is without any basis. Petitioner relying on the judgment in Joy Joseph v. District Collector, Kannur and others, 2016 (4) KHC 23 had contend that an application for grant of no objection certificate under Rules 2008 cannot be rejected merely for the reason that there is objection against the grant and the District Magistrate concerned has to follow the procedure prescribed for verifying the interest of public.

3. The learned Government Pleader on the basis of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent would contend that there is mass local protest against the establishment of the explosives manufacturing unit and it is the duty of the district administration to protect the interest of the general public and their reasonable demands and that a no objection certificate cannot be granted. Essentially the sum and substance of the averments in the counter affidavit is that there is public protest against the establishment of the unit and therefore the licence cannot be granted. A perusal of Ext.P10 would reveal that none of the para-metres with respect to the grant of no objection certificate for the establishment of an explosives manufacturing unit was considered while rejecting the wp(c) No.16226 of 2023 5 application submitted by the petitioner and that none of the no objection certificates granted as per Exts.P2 and P5 to P7 was properly considered while rejecting the application as per Ext.P10. Since the consideration of Ext.P1 application and the rejection of the same as per Ext.P10 were not in accordance with the Rules and there is no finding in Ext.P10 that any of the provisions of the Rules 2008 has been violated, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 1st respondent. Therefore, Ext.P10 order is set aside with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P1 application strictly in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and any other objectors as provided under Rule 103 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 and take a decision in the matter within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. With the abovesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of. VIJU ABRAHAM Sd/- JUDGE wp(c) No.16226 of 2023 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16226/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 Exhibit-P2 Exhibit-P3 Exhibit-P4 Exhibit-P5 Exhibit-P6 Exhibit-P7 Exhibit-P8 Exhibit-P9 Exhibit-P10 Exhibit -P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF NOC SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26.03.2022. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18.10.2022. A TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATED 20.09.2022 ISSUED BY DAMODHARAN, THE NEAREST RESIDENT. A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTION DATED 15.02.2023. A TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATED 23.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. A TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATED 01.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB, KANNUR. A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PERINGOM VAYAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT ALONG WITH THE RESOLUTION OF THE PANCHAYAT. A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 20.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION. A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 23.04.2023. A TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN AND DETAILS OF THE MANUFACTURING UNIT OF EXPLOSIVE PRODUCTS BUILDING IN R.S NO.95/157, 158 & 159 OF THE PERINTHETTA VILLAGE, PERINGOM VAYAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, wp(c) No.16226 of 2023 7 OWNED BY THE PETITIONER, OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R1(a) Exhibit R1(b) A true copy of the mass petition dated nil received from the residents of the locality A true copy of the compaint by Sri. T P Damodaran before the Village Officer dated nil