The main legal point established is that the provisions of special law prevail over the general law, and the court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure under the Explosives Rules, 2008 for issuing No Objection Certificate for blasting of rock.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Aradhe, J.

Sri.Ravi B.Naik, learned Senior counsel for Sri.Siddharth B. Muchandi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Sri.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 7.

Sri.K.B.Monesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

Sri.Rohan Hosmath, learned counsel for the respondent No.8.

2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.

3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of No Objection Certificate issued in favour of the respondent No.8 in respect of plot Nos.98 and 99 in Sy.No.152, EPIP Industrial Area, Hoodi Village, Bengaluru. The petitioner also seeks a direction for the respondent Nos.1 to 7 not to permit the respondent No.8 to deploy blasting of rock of the aforesaid plots.

4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is the owner of plot No.97 in Sy.No.152, Road No.2, EPIP Industrial Area, Whitefield, Bengaluru - 560 066. The petitioner, on the aforesaid property, has constructed a commercial building. The respondent No.8 is the owner of the adjoining plot namely plot No.98 and 99 in Sy.No.152, EPIP Industrial Area, Hoodi Village. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.8 indulged in illegal blasting of the rock. Thereupon, the petitioner made a complaint on 30.03.2019 to the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru along with acknowledgement. It is averred in the writ petition that Deployment Officer of KIADB vide communication dated 05.04.2019 informed the respondent No.8 that conducting blasting operation and putting up construction without sanction from the Board is illegal and unauthorized. However, despite the objection preferred by the petitioner as well as the KIADB, a No Objection Certificate was issued by the Commissioner of Police for a period of one year i.e. 24.04.2019 to 23.04.2020. In the factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, while inviting the attention of this Court to Rule 103 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 framed under the Explosives Act, 1884, submitted that the procedure prescribed under the Rule for issuance of the No Objection Certificate has not been followed and the No Objection Certificate has been issued by the Commissioner of Police and the impugned No Objection Certificate is per se without jurisdiction as the No Objection Certificate was required to be issued by the District Magistrate, after following the procedure prescribed under Rule 103 of the Rules. It is also averred that the objections preferred by the petitioner were not considered.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate, in compliance of the order dated 03.06.2019, has produced the report and has filed objections. It is submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that an enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner of Police before issuing the No Objection Certificate in favour of the respondent No.8.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 - Board, while inviting the attention of this Court to Regulation 4 of the Building Regulations framed by the Board, has urged that without obtaining any sanction by the Board, the respondent No.8 has started raising construction which is illegal and therefore, a communication was sent to respondent No.8 in this regard.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.8 has submitted that infact permission has been granted to the petitioner under Section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. It is further submitted that it is not necessary for the respondent No.8 to obtain prior sanction of the respondent No.5 - Board before proceeding further with the construction. It is also urged that the petitioner has already obtained building permission from the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike.

9. I have considered the subm