SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Mad) 3259

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
M/s. Chemfab Alkalis Limited - Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate cum District Collector & Others - Respondents
W.P. No.32655 of 2005 and 5452 of 2006
Decided On : 30 November 2006

Appearing Advocates:For the Petitioner:G. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for G.R. Associates, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 K.K. Sasidharan, Addl. Govt. Pleader, R2 Patty B. Jaganathan, R5 AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Raja Srinivas, R3 K. Ethiraj, Advocates.

No objection certificate issued and licence granted after fulfilling all the formalities.

Headnote:Petroleum Rules, 2002-Rules, 131, 141, 143 and 144-Manufacture of Caustic Soda by Petitioner Company- No objection certificate granted by District authority for locating a petroleum out let near the factory-Writ petitions-Held- No objection certificate and licence granted after completing all formalities prescribed-Apprehension about hazard of fire held not well founded-Writ petitions dismissed.

Judgment :-

(W.P.No.32655 of 2005:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.

W.P.No.5452 of 2006:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari as stated therein.)

Since both the writ petitions are with regard to the same issue and common in nature, both the writ petitions are taken up together and a common order is passed.

W.P.No.32655 of 2005:

The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the No Objection Certificate issued by the first respondent, on 31.8.2005, bearing No.12505/DM/20/D3/2005, in favour of the third respondent, quash the same, and to forbear the respondents from permitting or setting up any petroleum retail outlet near the vicinity of the petitioner's factory at Kalapet, Pondicherry and particularly at R.S.No.130/3A of 21, Pillachavadi Revenue Village, Pondicherry.

W.P.No.5452 of 2006:

The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the licence, dated 28.10.2005, vide Licence No.P/SC/PY/14/110 (P136235), issued by the first respondent in favour of the third respondent and to quash the same. 2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as for the respondents.

3. It is the case of the petitioner Company that it is one of the leading manufacturers of Caustic Soda in India having first Chlor Alkali plant to adopt membrane cell electrolyser. The petitioner Company was incorporated in the year 1983, and the factory had been established in the year 1985, with an investment of more than 100 crores and with the consent of the Pollution Control Authority. The petitioner's factory is situated at Kalapet near Pondicherry in an area of about 25 acres and nearly 250 employees are working in the said factory. The petitioner Company had won several awards and certified to ISO/14001 by LRQA for Environmental Management System. The petitioner Company, apart from manufacturing Caustic Soda, also produces Hydrochloric Acid, Sodium Hypo Chlorite and Liquid Chlorine. The Liquified Chlorine is classified as hazardous and should be kept away from potential fire sources. Likewise, the Hydrogen generated from the electrolysis is cooled, filtered and compressed and is highly inflammable.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner Company that during the month of April, 2005, some activities, like, inspection and measurements of land were going on in the adjoining site abutting the compound wall of the petitioner's factory. The petitioner Company came to know that a petroleum retail outlet was proposed to be situated in the site. Since the petitioner Company came to know the details regarding the proposed outlet, a representation was submitted to the Collector of Pondicherry, the first respondent herein, raising objections with regard to the setting up of the petroleum retail outlet near the petitioner's factory on the ground that the hydrogen and chlorine stored by the petitioner Company are highly inflammable and it would be dangerous to locate a petroleum bunk near its factory.

5. Pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner Company, the Deputy Collector (Revenue)-cum-Deputy Divisional Magistrate of Pondicherry, along with the concerned Revenue Officer had inspected the petitioner's factory, on 9.8.2005. After inspection, the Deputy Collector (Revenue)-cum-Deputy Divisional Magistrate had submitted a report to the first respondent, recording the objections of the petitioner Company with regard to the setting up of the petroleum retail outlet near the petitioner's factory premises. However, no personal enquiry was conducted with regard to the objections raised by the petitioner Company. Later, the petitioner Company had come to know that a 'No Objection Certificate' was issued in favour of the



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top