Restoration of No Objection Certificate for an explosive manufacturing unit upheld; procedural compliance established, and misuse of public interest litigation noted.

(Order of the Court was made by J. NISHA BANU, J.)

Challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 23.03.2018, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

2.The second respondent, vide impugned order dated 23.03.2018, restored the No Objection Certificate (NOC) previously issued by the Additional District Magistrate and District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli, by order dated 03.07.1998 to the fourth respondent, subject to the following conditions:

i. The un-authorized encroachment by construction of two terraced buildings in the pathway by the licensee shall be removed by the licensee within a week.

ii. The vari poramboke shall not be obliterated under any circumstances.

iii. The functioning hours of the factory, as permitted by the Explosive Authorities, shall be strictly maintained and there shall be no eviction and iv. This order is valid subject to obtaining necessary clearance certificates from the Fire and Rescue Department and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Tiruchirappalli,

3.The brief facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows:

The petitioner, who has filed the present Writ Petition as a Probono Litigant, is the former President of the Village Panchayat of T.Murungapatti Village. The petitioner has sent several representations to the authorities concerned alleged illegal activities conducted by the fourth respondent. On 01.12.2016, an explosion occurred at the factory of the fourth respondent, resulting in the death of 19 persons. Criminal cases were filed and are still pending. Consequently, the licenses issued to the fourth respondent were suspended and cancelled by the second respondent on 17.12.2016. This cancellation was challenged by the fourth respondent in W.P(MD)No.25046 of 2016 before this Court, which was dismissed on 27.02.2017. Aggrieved over the same, the fourth respondent preferred a Writ Appeal in W.A(MD)No.247 of 2017 before the Division Bench of this Court and this Court, by order dated 13.09.2017, disposed of the Writ Appeal with the following directions:

“(1) the impugned order is treated as show cause notice for which the appellant is at liberty to give a suitable explanation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

(2) the private respondents before us are also at liberty to give their submission within the afore said period;

(3)it is open to the second respondent to issue an impugned show cause notice touching upon the suppression of fact at the time of issuing the original No Objection Certificate and the question with respect to safety distance and the effect on the water level in the area;

(4) this direction issued by us on construction of Rule 113 of Explosive Rules, 2008 , where the power of the second respondent is rather wide in taking into consideration of public interest being paramount;

(5) a positive finding has to be rendered by the second respondent with respect to the Survey numbers governed in the No Objection Certificate;

(6) if the report as sought for by the second respondent in the letter dated 17.12.2016, is not furnished already by the first respondent, the same has to be furnished within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

(7) The second respondent has to pass a reasoned order touching upon all the issued including those raised in the written representation by the private respondents, in which case the copies of the same has to be furnished to the appellant;

(8) the entire exercise will have to be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(9) till such time there is no question of considering the