Partly allowed

P.Subbaiyan, v. The Chief Controller of

Madras HC3 Aug 2016WP/26974/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Bench directed the Chief Controller of Explosives to dispose of petitioner's representation regarding an LPG plant proposal within one month after giving notice to all concerned, allaying residents' apprehensions.

What did the court decide?

Order directing the First Respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 28.10.2015 after notice to all concerned within one month.

P.Subbaiyan, Vs The Chief Controller of — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 03.08.2016

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Honourable Mr.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

and The Honourable Mr.Justice R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P.No.26974 of 2016 & WMP.No.23185 OF 2016 P.Subbaiyan ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus 1.The Chief Controller of Explosives Minister of Commerce and Industries (Govt. of India) Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation Formerly Department of Explosives, 9^th Floor, A-Block, CGO Complex, Seminary Hills, Nagpur 440 006.

¶8

Arachalur Panchayat, rep. by its President, Arachalur Town Panchayat, Arachalur Post, Erode District 638101. 3.The District Collector, Erode, SH96, Palayapalayam, Erode-638 011.

¶9

4.M/s.Gas Points Petroleum India Ltd., 404, Sathyam Apartment, 8, Wardha Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur 400 014, Maharashtra.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.10.2015 in accordance with law within a reasonable time.

¶12

For Petitioner ::: Mr.P.J.Rishikesh

¶13

For Respondents ::: Mr.Rabu Manohar for R.1

¶14

Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan Special Government Pleader for R.2 and R.3

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

(The Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice)

¶18

The apprehension of inhabitants of the Archalur Village arising from setting up of the proposed bottle plant for storage of Liquefied Petroleum Gas, in our view, is arising from there being no response by the first respondent. If all necessary formalities are completed, then the apprehension can be allayed. Thus, if the first respondent had replied to the representation dated 28.10.2015 and had verified whether all formalities were met, then the situation of filing this writ petition would not have arisen. Naturally, if some norms are not met, then they have to be acted upon accordingly.

¶19

We are thus of the view that the representation made by the petitioner on 28.10.2015 be disposed of by the first respondent, after notice to all concerned, within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.

¶20

The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To

¶22

1.The Chief Controller of Explosives, Minister of Commerce and Industries

¶23

(Govt. of India), Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation Formerly Department of Explosives, 9^th Floor, A-Block, CGO Complex, Seminary Hills, Nagpur 440 006.

¶24

The president, Arachalur Panchayat, Arachalur Town Panchayat, Arachalur Post, Erode District 638101.

¶25

3.The District Collector, ERode, SH96, Palayapalayam, Erode. +1 cc to Mr.P.J.Rishikesh, advocate,sr.44025 +1 cc to Mr.B.Rabu Manohar,advocate,sr.43870 +1 cc to Govt.Pleader,sr.44095. scd(co) krd 18/8 W.P.No.26974 of 2016

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Subbaiyan, v. The Chief Controller of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Subbaiyan, v. The Chief Controller of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Muruganandham Vs the State

Shri Thirumal Vs the Government of India

Ms. P. Vasuki Vs the Commissioner

The State of Tamilnadu Vs R.v.Granites

V.S.Ekambaram Vs the Appellate Authority Under

Council of Architecture Vs Solomon