The judgment emphasizes the importance of complying with safety regulations under the Gas Cylinder Rules 1981 and the need to balance business operations with public safety concerns.

1. - Petitioner is licensee to deal in liquefied Petroleum Gas under the Explosive Act and Rules framed thereunder, for which a godown is situated at Rambag which is stated to be property of Mali Sansthan, nature of which is disputed between the parties. For the present purposes it may be stated that the godown is alleged to so constructed on an area of 30' x 51' feet. The constructed portion is surrounded by open boundary on all four sides. l On the Eastern side of the premises their is a road, part of which is mattled and part is kachha. The breadth of road is said to be 30 feet. The godown or the storage of L.P. Gas is required to be kept clear from all source of heat furnace or fire up to a distance of 9 meters on all sides according to specification given under the Gas Cylinders Rules 1981. The suit for injunction was filed by the respondents against the petitioner for restraining him from parking trucks of L.P.G. Cylinders on the road and from loading and unloading of cylinders on. the road alleging that on account of stationing the trucks on the road for the purpose.of loading and unloading of the gas cylinders which is a highly explosive gas, is a source of continuance public nuisance as well as private nuisance to the residents on the other side of the road.

2. An application for temporary injunction was also moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. The trial court found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and issued a temporary injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from loading and unloading the gas cylinders on the road and not to create any situation which may be dangerous to the safety. The trial Court also restrained the petitioner from stationing the trucks in such a manner on the road which may cause construction to reasonable use of the road by other persons. Both the parties appealed. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the defendant-petitioner. The appeal of the plaintiffs was partly allowed and it was clarified by the Additional District Judge, No. 2 that the defendant shall not park any truck of gas cylinders on the 30' wide road which is situated on the eastern side of the Godown and no loading and unloading shall be done on the road.

3. The principle contention.of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been that by the impugned order an impossible condition has been imposed on the petitioner indirectly resulting is the closure of business, which was not even the intention of the Court below. The lower Appellate Court has clearly stated that this order is not intended to result in closure of the business but it is intended to see that trucks carrying LPG cylinders are parked in the open space in front of the Godown within the boundary as stated in para 9 of the order of the Lower Appellate Court. In this connection his contention is that godowns for storing. L.P.G. and .other explosive materials are to satisfy specific conditions under the Rules of 1981 framed under the Explosive Act, He relies on the Gas Cylinder Rules; 1981 and the form of license for storage of gas cylinders annexed thereto. Condition 5 read with Condition 15 of the license requires that 9 meters of distance to be kept clear at all times between the Godown and Public road and no source of fire, furnace and heat be allowed in the storage and the area required as safety zone under the condition 5 of the license. According to the learned counsel for the defendant petitioner open space around the constructed godown on all sides is after leaving 9 meters is not enough to take the trucks. Trucks cannot be carried within 9 meter (about 30 feet) of the constructed portion or storage shed as the same are propelled by Petroleum fuel and is a source of heat. Otherwise, the petitioner has no objection in using the open space in front of his godown for loading and unloading of the gas cylinders.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents contest this position and states that there is enough space leavin