Gujarat High Court in Ammonium Nitrate Violation PIL Asks Petitioner to First Approach Authorities

Allowing the withdrawal of a PIL highlighting alleged non-compliance of the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 by certain entities in handling the chemical, the Gujarat High Court on Wednesday (Dec 4) asked the petitioner to first approach the relevant authorities empowered to deal with the issue and approach the court only for inactivity.

“Have you tried to approach someone? See why we ask this question. We are not the police, we are not collectors. Don’t make the court, the police and the collector out of it. First, one must go through these authorities, make efforts to intimate them. Preparing a submission and sending it by registered mail in general for 10-15 units is not an option. It is only for preparation of Writ Petition, PIL only. This is only for PILs“, a bench in Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi said orally.

The court noted that the court petition did not contain an affidavit that would prove that the applicant had contacted the relevant authorities. The representation that was submitted was sent by registered mail and it was not clear whether the authorities received it or not.

The division bench said that while it is not against entertaining PILs, but a public interest litigant has to demonstrate his integrity and file a categorical case; while the present PIL before him has not demonstrated this.

During the hearing, senior counsel Deven Parikh stated that the United Nations, international organizations, various international governments are aware of the problems arising from the handling of ammonium nitrate.

He said that the plaintiff lives near the persons who manufacture ammonium nitrate. He then stated that in 2012, the state government made ammonium nitrate, which was previously freely bought and sold in the country, subject to the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 and was declared an explosive substance. He further claimed that as per the rules all plants processing ammonium nitrate should register and the said rules are not being followed.

At this stage, the court orally asked:You are trying to say that the rules are not followed. Where is the statement on this matter. There must be a statement. And what it is based on“.

Thereafter, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out the grounds in this regard in the petition that the respective Respondents Nos. 11 to 19 are operating an Ammonium Nitrate Processing Plant, that the gross violation of the safety distance prescribed in the Ammonium Nitrate Rules is inconsistent with Rule 5 of the Ammonium Nitrate Rules; it was strongly argued that they were claiming exemption even though they had no right to do so, that the unit was not involved in the explosives industry, was not licensed and had not taken any measures to maintain a safe distance. The relevant body did not conduct a timely inspection, the statement added.

The court then orally asked whether the petitioner had approached the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB). “Where is the statement regarding this in the petition that you are approaching the GPCB“, the court asked.

The court noted that the petitioner’s statement was that he had written to the District Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police and the Chief Controller of Explosives. However, the court said that the main issue was with the GPCB and asked whether the GPCB had the right to conduct any inspections or not.

The Additional Government Representative then explained that the GPCB had no power to control. Main regulatory bodies; The Chief Controller and the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives have the power to control under the rules.

The Senior Counsel then pointed to the relevant rules and said:Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, an executive magistrate or a police officer authorized in the table shall inspect licensed premises situated within the jurisdiction once in 6 months to ascertain whether there have been any contraventions of the rules.”

At the same time, the court orally noted that the submission was dated October 21, and the petition was filed in November. He asked whether the applicant had made any other submissions or reminders during that time period. The applicant said no. “Where in the office is the confirmation received? This statement does not bear his name or signature and was sent by registered mail“, the court asked orally.

Parikh asked for amendments to the petition and said that they have approached the Collector on the matter and will submit the original records to the court.

Then the court orally said, “No, no statement in the court motion, this is a submission, not even a signed, hard copy of the submission sent by certified mail. You see, Mr. Senior Counsel, we are not against entertaining a PIL, but we are against entertaining this type of PIL.”

Parikh then asked for an additional affidavit, but the court rejected his request, saying time had already been granted twice.

Then the court said orally:Then you can withdraw it and file a new (petition), but then it has to include all the details and your efforts…because you are expected to go to them, if they don’t solve your case, then you come again.”

Then the bench dictated its order “After a short submission to ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been permitted to withdraw this petition as he proposes to approach the competent authority empowered to implement the provisions of the rules namely the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 by making a specific statement raising complaints against the alleged violation of the rules regarding private respondents 11 to 19. In connection with the submission of such statements, together with a copy of this decision, the competent authority under the rules authorized to inspect and enforce the 2012 Rules shall take necessary action and report and upon due notice to the claimant. However, in the event of inaction on the part of such a body, the plaintiff may appeal to the court again. In view of the above observations and directions, this petition filed as a public interest litigation is hereby dismissed.”

Case Name: PATHAN NAZIMKHAN MOHAMMAD KHAN V/S STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.