Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 18024
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr Justice S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
S.RAJASEKARAN – Appellant
Versus
JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER EXPLO – Respondent
A license must be valid for legal operational activities under the Explosives Act, and non-compliance can lead to prosecution.
Headnote:
Regulatory - Prosecution - Explosives Act, 1908; Static and Mobile Pressure Vessel (Unfired) Rules, 2016 - The court mandated the prosecution of an entity operating without a valid license under the relevant regulations, emphasizing compliance and enforcement of safety standards.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a directive for the prosecution of the second and third respondents for operating a storage facility for liquid argon gas after their license expired, contrary to the Explosives Act provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second respondent was operating past their license expiration date and that the first respondent had the authority to ensure compliance and initiate actions against any illegal operations.
Issues: Whether the second respondent was legally permitted to continue operations after the expiration of their license under the Explosives Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the second respondent's continued operation without a valid license constituted a violation of the Explosives Act, warranting possible prosecution.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for inspection and potential prosecution of unauthorized operations.
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the first respondent to prosecute the 2nd and 3rd respondents under the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1908 read with Static and Mobile Pressure Vessel (Unfired) Rules, 2016.
2. It is not in dispute that the second respondent was granted license to run their business of storing of liquid argon gas in pressurised vessel in the petitioner's place. The complaint of the petitioner is that the second respondent is operating his business even after the expiry of license by the competent authority under the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1908 .
3. In this context, this Court directed the first respondent to place the facts and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent furnished the copy of the proceedings dated 04.04.2024 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry. The said proceedings reveal that the license issued in favour of the second respondent has been expired on 30.09.2023. Thereafter, the second respondent has no authority to store the liquid argon gas in pressurised vessel.
4. If at all any illegality is noticed, the first respondent is empowered to initiate all appropriate actions in the manner known to law. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 made a submission that after issuance of proceedings dated 04.04.2024, the first respondent granted 15 days time to the respondents 2 and 3 to vacate the subject property. Therefore, the respondents 2 and 3 are bound to remove all the substances from the subject property by stopping all further operations.
5. The first respondent is directed to conduct an inspection and if any operations are continued, then the respondents 2 and 3 are bound to be prosecuted under the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1908 by following due process.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
mp With these directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
22.04.2024 Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No mp To Joint Chief Controller Explosives, Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organisation, A and D Wing Block, 1-8, Second floor, Shastri Bhavan, 26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai -600 006.
W.P.No.6887 of 2024
22.04.2024
