The central legal point established in the judgment is that regulatory compliance and adherence to prescribed regulations are crucial in determining the validity of administrative actions.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the notice dtd. 27/02/2017 - 17/08/2017 issued by 2nd respondent in No.Food/CR/41/2016-17 produced at Annexure - D, whereby 2nd respondent in the guise of notice has directed the petitioner to shift the gas godown from the present premises to any another suitable premises.

2. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition is that the petitioner is the owner of the land having purchased the converted property in the year 1986 in Sy.Nos.26/2 and 27/2 totally measuring 29.46 mtrs. East-West and 25.9 mtrs. South-West and built up area is 9.10 mtrs.x 6.10 mtrs., safety distance left 10.18 mtrs. x 9.95 mtrs. The petitioner, on purchase of the land on 21/04/1986 obtained licence from the Kalludi Gram Panchayat to construct a LPG Godown for the purpose of carrying on the business and accordingly, licence was granted. It is stated by the petitioner that before obtaining the licence from Kalludy Gram Panchayat, the prime requirement was of obtaining no objection certificate from the Department of Fire and no objection from the Controller, Department of Explosives along with the drawing which was approved by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Madras on 16/07/1986 and along with the plan permission and the same was obtained by the petitioner. It is stated that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited issued the dealership appointment letter dtd. 07/08/1986 to the petitioner and the petitioner started its business from 14/08/1986 as per the terms and conditions of letter of agreement as was entered into and the same has been renewed from time to time and the dealership agreement is valid. It is stated by the petitioner that as per the Rule, the building in question has been insured from time to time and the same is valid. The storage capacity of the godown is 8,000 kgs.m of LPG and the validity of the same has been extended which is described in Form No.F produced at Annexure - A wherein the minimum requirement is 7 mtrs. distance from the surrounding area of the godown has to be maintained in accordance with the conditions of the licence issued by the Competent Authority. It is stated by the petitioner that an complaint/representation was lodged by one Prashanth Nagar Nivasigala Abhivruddi Sangha/3rd respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the Sangha" for short) registered on 15/04/2003 which is not in anyway obstructing or causing any nuisance to the public at large and on the same day a representation was also given to the local MLA as per Annexure - B1 and the same has been endorsed by the MLA., whereby the MLA forwarded the representation to 2nd respondent/Tahsildar to examine and take action to change the location of the godown. Based on which, on 10/01/2016, the Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies communicated to 2nd respondent to hold enquiry for taking appropriate action as per Annexure - B2.

3. Thereafter, the Food Inspector inspected the premises and drawn a mahazar in the presence of the public and also in the presence of the petitioner and recorded a statement of both the parties on the same day and submitted a report to 2nd respondent as per Annexure - C and based on the same, the Tahsildar issued a readymade notice dtd. 27/02/2017 which is again re-dated as 17/08/2017 informing that respondent had orally informed to the petitioner to shift the business premises on 31/12/2016 and therefore directed the petitioner to shift the business premises to the new place where there is no movement of public vide Annexure - D which was received through registered post on 30/08/2017. It is also stated that the petitioner is carrying on the business since 1986 as per the norms prescribed under the Explosives Act by maintaining the minimum distance prescribed under the licensing condition, any license that is going to be issued by the 4th respondent without maintaining the distance norms around the godown premises and more so when