ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.:- The petitioner is the President of Vidarbha Flour Mills Owners Association, a registered trade union, registered under the provisions of Section 13 of Trade Unions Act, 1926. Petitioner No.2 is running a flour mill in New Mangalwari area since last more than 12 years. Respondent No.5 got the no objection for running the flour mill just 60 mtrs. away from the mill of petitioner no.2. However, respondent no.2 on 08.02.2006 cancelled the said no objection certificate by order dated 08.02.2006. On an appeal, respondent no.2 passed the impugned order dated 29.03.2006, whereby the provisional no objection certificate was granted to respondent no.5 for flour mill in the same area and at the same place. The petitioners, therefore, preferred revision before the Additional Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur against the order dated 29.03.2006. After considering the rival contentions as raised, respondent No.2 has remanded the matter back by observing as under:"1 therefore once again remand the case back to the Health Officer (Sanitation) with the direction that the Health Officer (Sanitation), to decide upon the issue of nuisance to the neighbour, should issue public notice in daily newspapers and exhibit the same in his office and Zonal Officer office, inviting claims and objections from neighbours/people around the area where permission for flour mill is to be granted, hear the claims and objections received and decide on the issue of nuisance, as to whether the flour mill, is causing neighbour nuisance or not. If nuisance is caused no such permission to run the flour mill should be granted. And if it proved that no nuisance is caused or will be caused to the neighbour or the people around, NOC/permission should be granted to the concerned for running of the flour mill with this direction the revision is disposed off." 2. The petitioners, therefore, being aggrieved by both the orders of granting provisional no objection, as well as, the order of remand, have invoked the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 3. As per the petitioners; the State Government passed the notification thereby imposing bar of minimum 200 mtrs. Distance between 2 flour mills before grant of permission to start new flour mill by a modification to the Development Control Rules of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur; Writ Petition No.500/1993, the Flour Mills Association Vs. The State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors. As per the petitioners; the State Government passed the notification thereby imposing bar of minimum 200 mtrs. Distance between 2 flour mills before grant of permission to start new flour mill by a modification to the Development Control Rules of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur; Writ Petition No.500/1993, the Flour Mills Association Vs. The State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors. was disposed of by this Court upon undertaking by respondent no.4 that "they will faithfully implement the rule about 200 mtrs. distance between the existing flour mill and the new flour mill to which the permission to be granted."; Respondent no.5 was granted no objection certificate by respondent no.6 for running the flour mill in Binaki Mangalwari area only 60 mtrs. away from the flour mill of the petitioners. Respondent no.6 cancelled the above said NOC upon objections by petitioner no.1 and the local residents, dated 25.10.2005 and 25.01.2006. The revision filed by respondent no.5 challenging cancellation of NOC was allowed by order passed by the Dy. Municipal Commissioner in appeal No.GAI 107/A-NOC (Health)/05-06. The appeal came to be filed by the petitioners against aforesaid order dated 27.03.2006 by Dy. Municipal Commissioner. In the said appeal the matter was remanded back to the Health Officer by the impugned order, thereby ignored the Govt. Notification dated 6.2.1989 and without providing any concrete guidelines in respect of desired distance between 2 flour mills and ambigious order came to be passed. Although the mater is remanded back to respondent no.6, but no steps are taken till date to investigate in the matter. 4. The reliance, so placed, by the petitioners on Notification dated 06.02.1989 and the order passed by the Court as observed above by recording undertaking that, "they will faithfully implemented, the rule about 200 mtr. distance between existing flour mill and the new flour mill to it, the permission to be granted."; was passed upon the Notification and position prior to 09.04.2001. The Development and Control Regulations, 2000 (for short DCR) have been enforced from 09.04.2001 for Nagpur city. distance between existing flour mill and the new flour mill to it, the permission to be granted."; was passed upon the Notification and position prior to 09.04.2001. The Development and Control Regulations, 2000 (for short DCR) have been enforced from 09.04.2001 for Nagpur city. The concerned respondents are liable to grant any such permission for running the flour mill based upon Appendix 'M' {[Regulation No.(l4.2)] (M-l.l (xvi))} of the DCR, which provide for provision of flour mill as under:- "Flour Mill with the special written permission of the Commissioner, NMC/ Chairman, NIT if- (a) it is located on the ground flour, (b) adequate care has been taken in the structural design, (c) it does not cause any nuisance to the neighbours and residents of upper flours, (d) power requirement does not exceed 7.5 KW., additional Horse Power up to 10, may be granted with special permission of the Commissioner, NMC/Chairman, NIT." Thus it is clear that the constraint of 200 Mtrs. distance between two flour mills does not exist. It is clear that the respondent/State has deleted the distance restriction of 200 mtr. between two flour mills as was existing in view of Notification dated 06.02.1989. That Notification was a proposal of minor modification to the DCR in order to change the Rules for installation of Flour Mills. The said restriction of 200 mtr was done away in the year 2001 itself. There is no bar to grant permission to operate flour mills as per DCR Conditions and considering the deep population and requirement of additional flour mills by following due practice and procedure. 5. The contention, therefore, now raised after more than six years by the petitioners and the insistence of restriction of 200 mtr. between two flour mills is unacceptable. Apart from the ground of delay and in view of the fact that since 2001 till this date, there are number of such permissions must have been granted by the respondents in Nagpur city, the challenge, so raised, by the petitioners, after lapse of such a period cannot be said to be in the interest of public at large. The policy decision has been taken by the concerned respondents to delete such restrictions, which cannot be gone into at the instance of the petitioners specially when there is no challenge whatsoever made and/or raised to the validity of the said DCR. The policy decision has been taken by the concerned respondents to delete such restrictions, which cannot be gone into at the instance of the petitioners specially when there is no challenge whatsoever made and/or raised to the validity of the said DCR. The Notification dated 06.02.1989 and even the undertaking so given now cannot be insisted by the petitioners against the existing DCR. The concerned respondents are bound to follow those Rules before granting no objection certificate or such permission after considering the interest of people at large of the locality. Thus, the submission, so raised, about the removal of 200 mtr. restriction has no force. 6. Even otherwise, we have noted that respondent no.2, by remanding the matter, in fact, directed the health officer/respondent no.6 to decide upon the issue of nuisance to the neighbours and issue public notice in daily newspaper and accept the same in his office and zonal Officer's office; invite claims and objections from neighbourers and people around the area; whether permission to flour mill is to be granted; hear the claims and objections received and decide on the issue of nuisance and further directed to consider the aspect of nuisance and grant no objection certificate/permission in accordance with law. 7. The provisional no objection is also granted on following various conditions:- "I. A first aid box should be kept. 2. The working hours should be in between sunrise to sunset only. 3. A metallic dust bin with tight cover to storage the waste material pending disposal be kept. The waste material stored in the dust bin should be disposed off suitably on regular intervals depending upon the volume of waste materials. 4. Noise nuisance should not be created to the neighbourers. 5. No work be done outside the premises and no material be kept outside the premises. 6. To obtain the licence from the Corporation and the same to be renewed every year. 7. No person suffering from any infection disease be employed. 8. Only corporation tap water should be used for the trade. 9. The trade premises should not be used for nay residential purpose. 10. "N 0 Smoking Board" should be provided. (b) Electric fitting should be done in conduit pipe only. 12.0ne dry/foam/soda acid fire extinguished should be provided. l3.A water tank for storage be provided. 14.All water container and storage should be emptied and cleaned on every fifth day. 15. 9. The trade premises should not be used for nay residential purpose. 10. "N 0 Smoking Board" should be provided. (b) Electric fitting should be done in conduit pipe only. 12.0ne dry/foam/soda acid fire extinguished should be provided. l3.A water tank for storage be provided. 14.All water container and storage should be emptied and cleaned on every fifth day. 15. The NOC is granted for the period of one year at the first instance. The validity period of the NOC expires after one year. If it is not renewed within the stipulated time, the renewal application submitted after expiry of the validity shall be treated as a fresh case. 16. The moving parts of the pulley be covered to prevent any casualty. 17.ln case of accidental injury, the entire responsibility of the employees of any claim etc. shall lie down with; the Employer only. 18.Any other conditions given by the Corporation from time to time should be complied. 19. Sufficient firer fighting equipments as detailed before shall be made available for prevention of fire as directed by Fire Brigade Department. a. Sand buckets, 2 Nos. b. Water buckets, 2 Nos. c. DCP extinguisher 1 Nos. d. electric fittings in P. V.C. Conduits. e. Water storage required for fire fighting equipments. 20.Being NIT controlled area, party should take the NOC from NIT and NOC from MSEB for load of proposed trade. 21.For industries, party has to follow the rules comes under Industrial Act. 22.Provision and rules under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Hazardous Wastes Management and Handling Rules, 1989 and the Air and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Less Act, 1977 and similar such Act and rules should be complied. 23.No objection certificate is granted subject to the condition of production of NOC from NIT/Slum Department. NOTE:- In view of the note of ADTP with regards to criteria of distance of 200 m being waived as in the D.C. Rules and the explanatory note of Add. M.C. and the order Deputy Municipal Commissioner on 28.3.06. The earlier order of this office stands cancelled. Hence, fresh no objection certificate issued." 8. It is necessary to observe that the concerned respondents are free to check the decisions with regard to the aspect of requirement of distance between two flour mills as per density of population in the area. M.C. and the order Deputy Municipal Commissioner on 28.3.06. The earlier order of this office stands cancelled. Hence, fresh no objection certificate issued." 8. It is necessary to observe that the concerned respondents are free to check the decisions with regard to the aspect of requirement of distance between two flour mills as per density of population in the area. The Rules so framed, as reproduced above, and the procedure and practice so followed for grant of No Objection Certificate and permission, as observed above, cannot be said to be unreasonable, unfair, arbitrary and/or beyond the scope and power of the concerned respondent. In view of this, there is no question of directing the respondents to follow the proposed modification by Notification dated 06.02.1989 while granting permission to new the flour mills. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.