Judgment :- 1 Challenge in this writ petition to the order of the Additional District Magistrate cum District Revenue Officer, dated 6.12.2010, granting licence to the third respondent under Rule 107 of the Explosive Rules, 2008. 2 Facts deduced from the supporting affidavit are as follows: The petitioners 1 and 3 are the joint owners of the land to an extant of 0.46.00 Hectares in Survey No. 344/6, Malapslayam Village. The third petitioner is the owner of the adjacent lands, measuring 1.27.50 Hectare in S. No. 344/1B, 344/2A and 346/4 of Malapalayam village. According to the petitioners, they have raised coconut grove in their lands. Petitioners 1 and 2, father and son, are residing in the three Angana Shalai (houses) in S.F. No. 344/6, which is its existence for over 30 years. The 3rd petitioner is residing in the 15 Angana Shalai, which is in existence for over 40 years. There is also a P.A.P. Main Canal situate near their lands. 3 The second petitioner has further submitted that the 3rd respondent is their paternal uncle and he owns lands in Survey No. 344/5A of Malapalayam Village to the north of their lands. There is a well in his lands with service connection. He has sold a portion of his lands with the said well to a third party who is having lands in Kariyamapalayam Villager about seven kilometers away from the lands. According to them, the 1st respondent has also sold another portion, i.e. 30 cents of his lands to, some other individuals in Nagarakalandai, which is 4 kilometers away from their village. According to them, the Well in Survey No. 344/5A has also been sold. 4 During the end of January, 2010, petitioners 1 and 2 undertook repairing work in their Shalais, as the same had become dilapidated and worn out. Immediately, the 3rd respondent started digging a well in his lands near their Shalais. But he could not make much head way and could only dig up a few feet, as he encountered hard rocks. When he attempted to use explosives to break the hard rocks, so as to sink his wall, it was immediately objected to by the petitioners, as the use of explosives would cause serious damage to their soil, crop and standing coconut trees. When he attempted to use explosives to break the hard rocks, so as to sink his wall, it was immediately objected to by the petitioners, as the use of explosives would cause serious damage to their soil, crop and standing coconut trees. It was also pointed out that the adjoining east-west cart track, as well as the P.A.P. Main Canal would be damaged by the explosion. 5 In this context, a legal notice, dated 9.2.2010 was issued to the District Collector, Coimbatore District, first respondent herein, the Additional District Magistrate cum District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein as well as to the Tahsildar, Sulur Taluk and the V.A.O., Maiapalayam Village, pointing out that the use of explosives to break the hard rocks would cause serious damage to the lands, cattle, cart track and the P.A.P. Canal. It was also highlighted that the second petitioner is residing 20 feet away from the proposed well and that the 3rd petitioner‘s house is situated about 70 feet from the proposed well. It was also pointed out that the explosion would affect the area of 300 meters radius, surrounding the place of explosion. Being aggrieved by the steps taken by the petitioners, the third respondent filed O.S. No. 45 of 2010, D.M.C., Palladam, against petitioners 1 and 2 for permanent injunction and that his application for injunction came to be dismissed on 12.8.2010. 6 In the mean while, the third respondent has moved the 2nd respondent for licence under Rule 107 of the Explosives Rules, under a false pretext that he has intended to deepen his existing well for agricultural use. Without taking note of the petitioners‘ objections and without conducting a proper enquiry, the second respondent, by impugned order dated 6.12.2010, has issued licence under Rule 10 of the Explosives, Rules to the 3rd respondent, for deepening an existing well using class 2/class 3 explosives and subject to the conditions Stipulated in the licence. On 22.12.2010, the respondent has used powerful explosives substances for breaking hard rocks, contrary to the terms of the licence, by which, petitioners houses and cattle shed were shaken and rattled. Tiles have moved away and cracks developed in the walls. On 22.12.2010, the respondent has used powerful explosives substances for breaking hard rocks, contrary to the terms of the licence, by which, petitioners houses and cattle shed were shaken and rattled. Tiles have moved away and cracks developed in the walls. As the rocks were hard, the third respondent could not make much progress and at this juncture, petitioners 1 and 2 have issued a notice, dated 23.12 2010 to the 1st respondent seeking intervention and cancellation of the license issued to the 3rd respondent. Copies of the notice were sent to the 2nd respondent. That apart, all the inhabitants have submitted a petition, dated 27.12.2010 to the 1st respondent, seeking, emergent intervention and for cancellation of the licence granted to the third respondent. As no steps have been taken on the representation of petitioners 1 and 2 and since the third respondent is likely to use explosive substances to dig his well by breaking the hard rocks, the petitioners have approached this Court for cancellation of the licence granted under the Explosive Rules, 7 Assailing the correctness of the licence, Mr. T.M. Hariharan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Rule 107 of the Explosive Rules, imposes an obligation on the Licensing Authority to make enquiries and to comply with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. But, the second respondent herein has issued the licence mechanically, without making any enquiry and without considering the objections of the writ petitioners and others. According to him, the third respondent has maneuvered to obtain the licence under the pretext of deepening an existing well and the second respondent has not even taken care to verify the facts, before granting licence. According to him, the third respondent has maneuvered to obtain the licence under the pretext of deepening an existing well and the second respondent has not even taken care to verify the facts, before granting licence. 8 Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that when objections were raised by the petitioners and others, stating that while carrying out the blast, using powerful explosives, the Shalai of petitioners 1 and 2, situated about 20 feet from the place of the proposed well and the Shalai of the third petitioner situated about 70 feet from the proposed well, would be damaged and that it would also affect the coconut grove, agricultural crops, cattle and the shed situated in their lands, close to the place, where blast was undertaken and the fact that a PAP channel also passes very near the proposed blast site, the competent authorities, viz., respondents 1 and 2, have failed to advert to the above said vital aspects and have mechanically granted the explosive licence to the third respondent, ignoring the grave risk, not only to the petitioners and also to the other inhabitants in the vicinity of the blast site. 9 Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that before granting explosive licence under Rule 107 of the Explosive Rules, it is the bounden duty of the second respondent to consider, as to whether the third respondent had satisfied the provisions of the Act and the Rules, made thereunder and that the petitioners ought to have been provided with an opportunity to highlight their objections, as they had already issued a notice, dated 9.12.2010 to the first respondent before the licence was granted. 10 He further submitted that the second, respondent ought to have seen that the civil Court has already declined to grant an injunction in favour of the third respondent and therefore, the impugned proceedings suffer front non-application of mind as to the valid objections raised by the petitioners and other inhabitants in the vicinity of the site, as, there is a procedural violation in not conducting a proper enquiry and failure to afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to highlight the objections, in the light of what is stated in the notice, dated 9.2.2010 sent to the respondents 1 and 2 and others. For the above said reasons, he prayed to set aside the impugned order of licence. For the above said reasons, he prayed to set aside the impugned order of licence. In support of his contention, he also took this Court through the impugned orders and some of the photographs enclosed enclosed along with the typed set of papers. 11 Record of proceedings shows that while entertaining the writ petition, this Court has granted interim stay of the operation of the licence and seeking vacation of the same, the third respondent has failed a vacate stay petition. 12 Based an the averments in the supporting affidavit and the reports of the Tahsildar, Sulur Taluk, and other documents, enclosed in the typed sat of papers, Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the writ petition is ill-conceived and it is nothing but reflection of an oblique motive of disabling the third respondent from improving his property and making out his livelihood. According to him, the first petitioner is none other than the own brother of the third respondent and the 2nd petitioner is the son of the first petitioner. He further submitted that a Partition of the property was effected on 1.2.1979 and as per the partition, ‘A‘ schedule property was given to the third respondent with right of maintenance of his parents. ‘B‘ schedule property was allotted to the 1st petitioner and ‘C‘ schedule property again was allotted to the third respondent. The respective parties took possession of their shares and effected mutation of records also. 13 Learned counsel for the third respondent further submitted that as par the partition, an extent of 2.34 acres in survey No. 344/5A1 was allotted to the third respondent and an extent of 1 acre in survey No. 344/5A1 running east to west, on the southern side was allotted to the 1st petitioner and an extent of 1.34 acres, on the northern side was allotted to third respondent. Thereafter, the third respondent has sold the well situated on the, property measuring, around 16 cents to meet out the domestic expenses and thereafter, thought of digging up a well to continue the agricultural operations. According to the third respondent, there are 100 coconut trees and other similar plantations, that require constant watering. Thereafter, the third respondent has sold the well situated on the, property measuring, around 16 cents to meet out the domestic expenses and thereafter, thought of digging up a well to continue the agricultural operations. According to the third respondent, there are 100 coconut trees and other similar plantations, that require constant watering. 14 Learned counsel for the third respondent further submitted that after notifying the spot, wherein water is available, the third respondent has approached the competent authorities for permission to blast the rocks, so as to enable him to dig up the well. According to him, the location of the well, is 70 feet away from the 1st petitioner‘s property and it is almost double the distance from the PVP channel. 15 He further submitted that the third respondent has approached the Assistant Executive Engineer, Coimbatore and paid the necessary fee for inspection and requested their services for using a borewell machine, thereafter, he approached the Additional District Magistrate and District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, second respondent and the Competent Authority under the Explosives Rules to grant permission to use explosives for the purpose of deepening the well. According to him, an explosion was done in the presence of police officials and other statutory authorities, in accordance with law and the terms and conditions of the licence. 16 It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the third respondent that since the petitioners, who had an eye on the property and demanded some amount to permit him to proceed with the construction activities, with an evil design, have approached the authorities with a false case. It is also his further submission that for digging up of a well or to sell his property, the third respondent does not require any consent from his divided brother or his sons and all the steps taken by the petitioners are only to prevent 3rd respondent from improving his agricultural lands. 17 Learned counsel for the third respondent denied the contention that the public have complained of the damage to the canal, since it is not within the vicinity of the well. He further submitted that the signatures contained in the representation, dated nil, said to have bean submitted to the District Collector are only for the purpose of this writ petition and there was no representation as such before the competent authority. He further submitted that the signatures contained in the representation, dated nil, said to have bean submitted to the District Collector are only for the purpose of this writ petition and there was no representation as such before the competent authority. 18 According to him, there was no attempt to defraud the second respondent herein in getting permission to dig up a well in the abovesaid, property and only on a valid request on 5.3.2010 to dig up a new well, enquiries were conducted by respondents 1 and 2 through their subordinates and licence was granted. In this context, learned counsel for the third respondent referred to the application, dated 5.3.2010, submitted to the second respondent, the request of the District Revenue officer, Coimbatore, dated 12.3.2010, addressed toy the Deputy Director, Geology and Mining Department, Coimbatore and the Inspection Report of the Tahsildar, Sulur Taluk, dated 16.8.2011. 19 Learned counsel for the third respondent also submitted that the petitioners and their henchmen have prevented the third respondent from digging up the well, by using force and when he along with others were attempted to be assaulted and threatened with dire consequences, complaints were preferred. Sub-Inspector of Police, Sulur Taluk and other higher officials. 20 As regards the contention that the interim prayer for injunction was rejected in O.S. No. 45 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palladam and inspite of the same, the second respondent has granted the explosive licence, learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the suit is for a bare injunction, restraining the defendants therein from in anyway interfering with the plaintiff and enjoyment of the suit up the well on the South East of his lands and it has no relevance to the grant of explosive licence under the rules. There was no pleading with reference to the grant of licence in the suit and therefore, even if the interim prayer sought for, is rejected, that will not preclude the competent authorities under the Rules to grant licence, subject to satisfying the requirements under the rules. 21 Learned counsel for the third respondent also brought to the notice of this Court, the Commissioner‘s Report filed in O.S. No. 45 of 2010, dated 17.2.2010 and further contended that the Shalais (houses) of the petitioners are located far away from the site. 21 Learned counsel for the third respondent also brought to the notice of this Court, the Commissioner‘s Report filed in O.S. No. 45 of 2010, dated 17.2.2010 and further contended that the Shalais (houses) of the petitioners are located far away from the site. For the abovesaid reasons, he submitted that there is no bona fide on the part of the petitioners, in preventing the third respondent from digging up a well by using explosives. 22 Based on the counter affidavit filed by the Additional District Magistrate cum District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, second respondent‘, herein, Ms. Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate submitted that the 3rd respondent has applied for permission to dig up a new well by using detonators in S.F. No. 344/5A1 in Malapalayam village of Sulur Taluk in Coimbatore District. Land records revealed that the 3rd respondent, as the land owner of land measuring an extent of 0.43.0 Hectres of land in S.F. No. 344/5A1 and 1.15.5 Hectres of land in S.F. No. 467/1 of Kalapalayan Village of Sulur Taluk, vide Ownership Certificate, K.Dis. 2652/2010 B4, dated 4.3.2010 of Tahsildar, Sulur. 23 Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the 3rd respondent has applied, enclosing an agreement letter, by the executor for using explosives, viz., Senthil Explosives, Sulur and the executor had also enclosed an Explosive License issued by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosive, South Circle, Madras. The Deputy Director of Geology and Mines, Coimbatore, in his report, dated 13.4.2010, along with copy of Inspection Notes of Assistant Geologist (Geology and Mining, Coimbatore, recommended to issue permission to blast the rocks by using explosives to dig a new well in S.F. No. 344/5A1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, in his report, dated 26.10.2010, has also recommended the same. The proposed site was inspected by the Additional District Magistrate and District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, on 4.12.2010 and vide Proceedings No. K. Dis. 7058/2010/01, dated 6.12.2010, permission was accorded to extend the depth of the new well in S.F. No. 344/51A1B for agricultural purposes, by using less intensive explosives to remove hard rocks with certain conditions, by using class 2 or class 3 explosives, not exceeding 2kgs, Electric or ordinary detonators not exceeding 50 numbers and safety fuse not exceeding 100 meters. 7058/2010/01, dated 6.12.2010, permission was accorded to extend the depth of the new well in S.F. No. 344/51A1B for agricultural purposes, by using less intensive explosives to remove hard rocks with certain conditions, by using class 2 or class 3 explosives, not exceeding 2kgs, Electric or ordinary detonators not exceeding 50 numbers and safety fuse not exceeding 100 meters. 24 Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the 3rd respondent, who was issued with permission to use controlled blasting had applied for permission only on 5.3.2010 and as such the events, ground realities and the disputes between the writ petitioners and the third respondent have no relevance at that point of time. According to her, issue of the legal notice, dated 9.2.2010, is not a bar for granting permission, when all the procedures were duly followed. In the inspection notes, the Assistant Geologist had reported that there is a tiled house 30 meters away west from the well. A tiled house 70 meters away south-west and a small tiled shed 10 meters away South and PAP Channel 70 meters away east of proposed well. The Additional District Magistrate and District Revenue Officer in his inspection report, dated 4.12.2010 has stated that there is a dwelling house (Shalai) 40 meters north of the well, a dwelling house (Shalai) 20 meters south of the well and PAP channel 55 meters away east of the well. It is further submitted that the personal inspection report of the above officials clearly revealed that the houses of the writ petitioners are not situate within 20 feet front the well, as claimed by them. 25 Learned Government Advocate further submitted, that the contention that if explosives are used to break the hard rocks, it would cause disturbance in an area of 300 meters radius surrounding the place of explosion and splinters and stones would be strewn in the entire area are unfounded, since permission given was for using only less intensive explosives by adopting controlled blasting. She also submitted that the suit in O.S. No. 45 of 2010 filed by the third respondent before the District Munsif Court, Palladam, does not have any direct influence, pertaining to explosive licence. 26 Learned Government Advocate further submitted that on the application of the third respondent, the Tahsildar, Sulur and the Assistant Geologist (Geoldgy & Mining), Coimbatore, have inspected the said place. 26 Learned Government Advocate further submitted that on the application of the third respondent, the Tahsildar, Sulur and the Assistant Geologist (Geoldgy & Mining), Coimbatore, have inspected the said place. Based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, and the report of the Deputy Director (Geology and Mining), Coimbatore, the Additional District Magistrate and District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore has also inspected the site and after considering all the aspects, necessary permission has been granted to the third respondent and it is well within the provisions of the and the Rules. 21 As regards Photographs and as to what happened during the limited blast, said to have been made on 22.12.2010, Learned Government Advocate further submitted that there is no valid materials to prove the same and the petitioners are put to strict proof. According to her, all the authorities have personally inspected the site in question and satisfied themselves as to the safety measures, before issuing the explosive licence and that the third respondent has been, permitted to use only low intensity explosives, with controlled blast of Class 2 or Class 3 explosives and such controlled blasting would not cause substantial damages. For the abovesaid reasons, she submitted that there is no illegality committed by the second respondent in issuing the explosive licence and therefore, prayed to sustain the same. 28 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 29 In order to adjudicate the rival contentions, records pertaining to grant of explosive licence were directed to be produced with the reports. In addition to the production of the records, subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the authorities have issued notices to the writ petitioners and after inspection, a report has also been filed by the Deputy Collector, Coimbatore District. In the petitioner‘s notice, dated 9.2.2010, addressed to the District Collector, Coimbatore District, the petitioners have inter alia contended that the Shalai (House) of the petitioners 1 and 2 is situated at 20 feet away of the proposed well and that the Shalai (House) of the third petitioner is situated about 70 feat away from the proposed wall and that they are in existence for the past three or four decades. PAP main channel is passing nearby the place of blasting and that the ground water would be affected, if blasting is carried out. PAP main channel is passing nearby the place of blasting and that the ground water would be affected, if blasting is carried out. Stones would be strewn within 300 meters, if the explosives are allowed to be used and it would cause damage to the cattle and shed. Further, the adjoining east-west cart track also would be damaged. Besides, it would affect the coconut grove, agricultural crops and also their agricultural activities in their lands. 30 From the above, it is evident that before granting explosive licence to dig up a well by the third respondent in Survey No. 344/5A of Malapalayam Village, objections have been raised by the writ petitioners. Perusal of the notice, dated 9.2.2010, of the petitioners, shows that they were objecting for digging up of the well, alleging that their agricultural land and houses are located near the well. They have apprehanded danger to their property. Heading of the abovesaid notice also makes it clear that the third respondent had only started to dig up a well and apprehending that explosive licence would be obtained by the third respondent for using explosives, objections have been raised. The said objections seemed to have been made on the premise that the third respondent had already applied for explosive licence. But, the fact remains that the third respondent has made the application only on 5.3.2010 to the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, seeking permission to dig up a new well in Survey No. 344/5A1, along with the agreement letter executed by Senthil Explosives, Sulur. In response to the same, the authorities have ascertained the ownership of the lands, which revealed that the third respondent as the land owner of land, measuring an extent of 0.43.0 Hectres of land in S.F. No. 344/5A1 and 1.15.5 Hectres of land in S.F. No. 467/1 of Malapalayam Village of Sulur Taluk, vide Ownership Certificate, K.Dis. 2652/2010 B4, dated 4,3.2010 of Tahsildar, Sulur. 31 Therefore, it is evident that inasmuch as the third respondent has applied for permission to dig up a well, by using detonators in S.F. No. 344/5A1 in Malapalayarn village of Sulur Taluk in Coimbatore District, only on 5.3.2010, there was no occasion for the respondents 1 and 2 to make any enquiries into the disputes, between the petitioners and the third respondent, or even to consider the objections. 32 The contention of the petitioners that knowing fully well that the third respondent cannot get the licence to dig a well, by breaking the hard rocks, near the ground level, has maneuvered to obtain the licence, under the pretext of deepening an existing well and the second respondent has not even taken care to verify the facts, before granting licence, cannot be accepted for the reason that perusal of the application submitted by the third respondent and the records produced by the official respondents shows that permission was sought foe only to dig up a new well and not for deepening any existing well in S.F. No. 344/5A1. The contents of the application, dated 5.3.2010, addressed to the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, reads as follows: From S. Mylsamy, S/o. Subbe Gounder, 4/83, Ellai Thottam, Nagarakalandai, Malapalayam Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District. To The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. Sub: Digging up a new well in the agricultural land – Reg. Sir, I am residing in the abovesaid address, doing agriculture. In the lands in my possession in S.P. No. 344/5A1, 467/1, I am doing coconut farming. Now, due to insufficiency of water in the lands in S.F. No. 344/5Al, I am going to dig a new well. I humbly request you to grant permission for digging up a well. Yours, Sd/- 5.3.2010 Enclosures: Document copy, Chitta, Adangal, Sketch, Possession Certificate, Encumberance Certificate, copy, 33 Pursuant to the request, letters dated 5.3.2010 and 11.3.2010, submitted, the second respondent, in proceedings in Rc. No. 7058/2010/Ke.1, dated 12.3.2010, has requested the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Coimbatore, to make an inspection of the site and submit a report. He has also enclosed a copy of the application for grant of permission. 34 Records produced by the official records shows that the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Coimbatore, has directed the Assistant Geologist, Geology and Mining to submit a report, after the site inspection. Based on the inspection notes of the Assistant Geologist, Geology and Mining, Coimbatore, the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Coimbatore, in his report dated 13.4.2010, addressed to the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, second respondent herein, along with the Inspection Report of the Assistant Geologist, Geology and Mining, Coimbatore, has recommended to issue permission to blast rocks by using explosives to dig a new well in S.F. No. 344/5Al. The said Inspection report, as found in the records, as follows: “Coconut trees are found in Survey No. 344/5A1. In the middle, there is a well to an extent of 4m x 6m length breath and 2.5m depth. After removing 2.5m gravel sand, granite nice mineral rocks are found from the middle portion to the south side of the wall. On the western side of the well, about 30m North, there is one tiled roof house, on the South-West, 70 mts away, there is one tiled roof house, on the southern side, 10m away, one very small tiled roof shed and on the Eastern side, 70m away, PAP cannel is present. Therefore, permission may be given to remove the granite nice mineral rocks found during the digging of the well by using low density explosives by employing a licensed blaster without causing any damage to the nearby buildings and PAP cannel.” 35 Subsequently, the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, in his proceedings in Rc. No. 7058/2010 (Kel), dated 28.5.2010, has requested the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, to submit a report on the petitions, dated 5.3.2010 and 11.3.2010 of the third respondent, requesting permission to use explosives to break hard rocks for digging up a well in Survey No. 344/5A1 and in response to the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, in his proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 6161/2010/A5, dated 8.7.2010, has directed the Tahsildar, Sulur Taluk, to submit a report. On receipt of the abovesaid directions, the Tahsildar, Sulur Taluk, has inspected the site on 16.8,2010 and vide proceedings in Rc. No. 8458/2010/A4, dated 6.9.2010, has submitted a report to the District Revenue Officer to the effect that permission may be accorded, subject to the rules. The Inspection Report of the Tahsildar, dated 16.8.2010, is extracted hereunder: “In pursuance of the petition submitted by Mr. Mylsamy, S/o. Suba Gounder, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, requesting permission to dig up a well by using explosives in S. No. 344/5A1, Sulur Circle, Varapatty, Malaipalayam Village, an inspection has been done. The land in S. No. 344/5A1 measuring 0.42.5 Hectares belongs to the above petitioner. Now, in the Centre of the above land, the petitioner has dug up a new well to an extent of 15ft depth. As there were rocks below the said depth he seeks permission to blast the same by using explosives. The land in S. No. 344/5A1 measuring 0.42.5 Hectares belongs to the above petitioner. Now, in the Centre of the above land, the petitioner has dug up a new well to an extent of 15ft depth. As there were rocks below the said depth he seeks permission to blast the same by using explosives. In and around the Well, there are no high tension electric poles. On the North of the above said land, at a distance of 40 mts., there is a residential land; on the south in S. No. 344/6, at a distance of 20 mts., there is a residential plot. On the Eastern side, at a distance of 55 mts., Parambikulam Azhiyar irrigation Scheme canal is located. On the Western Side, the petitioner owns lands. He has given an undertaking that while blasting the rocks, he would strewn, the well, by putting trees and leaves, and thus, prevent the stones from being thrown out. Therefore, a report may be sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer to grant permission.” 36 Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, in his proceedings in Rc. No. 6161/2010/A5, dated 26.10.2010, addressed to the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, second respondent herein, has recommended for grant of permission to blast the rocks, using Class 2 and Class 3 explosives. Along with his recommendation, he has also enclosed the report of the Tahsildar, dated 6.9.2010 and other documents. 37 Files further disclose that the site was also inspected by the Additional District Magistrates cum District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore second respondent herein on 4.12.2010, in the presence of Tahsildar, Sulur Taluk, Regional Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector, Village Administrative Officer. After inspection of the site, permission has been granted on 6.12.2010, to dig up a new well in Survey No. 344/5A1B for agricultural purpose by using less intensive explosives to remove, hard rocks, with the following conditions by using class 2 or class 3 explosives, not exceeding 2kgs, electric or, ordinary detonators not exceeding 50 numbers and safety fuse not.exceeding 100 meters, “(1) While digging hard rock of the well explosives with lesser intensity should be used by adopting controlled blasting. (2)Blasting should be carried out safely by using licensed holder. (3)Before blasting, the public around the blasting place should be informed that the time of blasting well ahead by Tom-Tom. (2)Blasting should be carried out safely by using licensed holder. (3)Before blasting, the public around the blasting place should be informed that the time of blasting well ahead by Tom-Tom. (4)Precautions and safety methods should be ensured that no damages are done to public properties of Government, and private. (5)Safer distance and time interval should be ensured. (6)Safety precautions should be taken so as to avoid any damages to the nearby PAP channel. (7)There should be no blasting before 6.00 a.m. or after 6.00 p.m. (8)Rules and Regulations of should be strictly complied with.” 38 Perusal of the records and the reports of the various authorities stated supra, clearly show that the PAP main channel is situated far away from the proposed site and that the authorities have clearly stated that there would not be any damage to the channel by the usage of explosives. However, the licences has also been directed to take safety means to avoid any damage to PAP Channel. From the above, it could be noticed that as per the inspection notes of the Assistant Geologist, Geology and Mining, Coimbatore, there is a tiled house 30 meters away vest from the well. There is yet another tiled house 70 meters away south-west and a small tiled shed 10 meters away South of Well. The Additional District Magistrate and District Revenue Officer in his inspection report, dated 4.12.2010 has stated that there is a dwelling house (Shalai) 40 meters north of the well, a dwelling house (Shalai) 20 meters south of the well and PAP channel 55 meters, away east of the well. The personal inspection reports of the above officials reveal that the houses of the writ petitioners are not situate within 20 feet from the well, as contended. 39 The impugned order also shows that the permitted explosives are only low intensity ones, with controlled blast of Class 2 or Class 3 explosives and it is the categorical statement of the second respondent that such controlled blasting with adequate safety measures, directed to be taken by the second respondent, would not cause substantial damage. 39 The impugned order also shows that the permitted explosives are only low intensity ones, with controlled blast of Class 2 or Class 3 explosives and it is the categorical statement of the second respondent that such controlled blasting with adequate safety measures, directed to be taken by the second respondent, would not cause substantial damage. It is also the specific case of the respondents that when explosives are used to break the hard rocks, it would not cause disturbance in an area of 300 meters radius surrounding the place of explosion and that the apprehension that splinters and stones would be strewn in the entire area is unfounded, since the permission has been given only for using less intensive explosives, by adopting controlled blasting. 40 Though the petitioners have contended that their Shalais (houses) are located within the close vicinity of the proposed well, the Commissioner‘s report submitted in the suit in O.S. No. 45 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palladam, is otherwise. On the complaint that the petitioners were not heard or given any opportunity before the grant of explosive licence and that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice and that their objections were not taken note of, after filing of the writ petition, the Deputy Collector, Coimbatore, on the instructions of the District Collector, Coimbatore, has inspected the site in Survey Nos. 344/6, 344/1B, 344/2A, 344/1A, 344/5A1B, 344/5A1A, 344/5A2 and 344/5B, in the presence of Smt. K. Vijayakumari, Additional Zonal Tahsildar, Thiru. R. Ramakrishnan, Revenue Inspector, Thiru. S.V. Thangavelu, Surveyor and Thiru. Murugesan, Village Administrative pfficer, Malapalayam and the petitioners also. The Inspection report dated 2.2.2011, reads as follows: Inspection Officer A. Alagasan, Deputy Collector, (Scheme for providing Free Colour Television) Coimbatore Date of Inspection 2.2.2011 Taluk Sulur Circle Varapatty Village Malaipalayam Survey Nos. 344/6, 344/1B, 344/2A, 344/1A, 344/5A1B, 344/5A1A, 344/5A2, 344/5B Tmt. K. Vijayakumari Zonal Deputy Tahsildar Thiru R. In the presence Ramakrishnan, Revenue Inspector Thiru S.V. Thangavelu, Surveyor, Thiru. Murugesan, VAO, Malapalayam. As per the instructions of the District collector (Scheme for providing Free Colour Television), inspected Survey Nos. 344/6, 344/1B, 344/2A, 344/1A, 344/5A1B, 344/5A1A, 344/5A2, 344/5B, Malaipalayam Village, Sulur Taluk, on 2.2.2011, in compliance with the directions of the High Court in W.V.M.P. No. 3 of 2011 in M.P. No. 2 of 2011 in W.P. No. 263 of 2011, and submitted the full report. 344/6, 344/1B, 344/2A, 344/1A, 344/5A1B, 344/5A1A, 344/5A2, 344/5B, Malaipalayam Village, Sulur Taluk, on 2.2.2011, in compliance with the directions of the High Court in W.V.M.P. No. 3 of 2011 in M.P. No. 2 of 2011 in W.P. No. 263 of 2011, and submitted the full report. During inspection, the writ petitioners, viz., (1) Thirumalaisamy, (2) Sakthivel and (2) A. Arumugam, respondent, S. Mylsamy and a nearby resident, viz., Thiru. V. Kandasamy Gounder, were present. The above persons were present till the completion of inspection. During inspection, the above mentioned Government officers were also present. The writ petitioners, respondent and Mr. K. Veluaamy Gounder, Mr. S. Sarathram, own the below lands in Malaipalayam Village, as follows: PattaNo. Survey Area Category Tax Land Owners Things exist No. Rs. in the lands One recently 1. S. constructed Thirumalaisamy 2. tiled roof T. Sakthivel (writ house, built 209 344/6 0.46.0 Punjai 1.27 petitioner) 3. S. 1 with hollow Manthriyappan, blocks S/o. Sennimalai stones, Gounder without door number Asbestos sheet and 2 tiled roof house with Door No. 4/184 3 One Cow shed 4 One Well 5 One borewell 6 Coconut trees One tiled roof A. Arumuga house, with Asbestos 31 344/1B 0.41.0 Punjai 1.16 Gounder (writ 1 sheet in front, petitioner) with Door No. 4/185 2 Coconut trees From East-West of S. No. 2B, on the 3 west of ca- nal upto Sl. No. 1B, there is a patta cart-track A. Arumuga 344/2A 0.62.5 Punjai 1.75 Gounder (writ 1 Coconut trees petitioner) K. Velusamy 479 344/1A 0.43.0 Punjai 1.21 Gounder (nearby resident of the disputed land) 344/5A S. Mylasamy (3rd 1042 0.42.5 Punjai 1.17 re- spondent in 1B this writ petition) From East-West of S. No. 2B, on the 2 west of ca- nal upto Sl. No. 1B, there is a patta cart-track 3 One Well A recently formed cow 4 shed measuring 2.6m x 5m A tiled roof 1 house with door No. 4/186 2 Coconut trees One New 1 unfinished well without water 2 Coconut trees Recently dug up well, 3 closed with chopped co-conut trees From the well, 15 mts on the Southern 1041 344/5A 1A side, 6 mts North, 20 mts on the East, 12 mts West, 4 were braided coconut leaves between iron rods. 5 Two borewells 0.06.5 Punjai 0.18 S. Sarathram 1 One Well 2 Coconut trees — 344/5A2 — 344/5B 0.16.5 Public Work Department‘s Canal 0.34.0 Public Work Department‘s Canal 1. Respondent, Thiru S. Myilsamy, has encroached upon the canal to an extent of 0.17 Acre part and dug up a borewell. There are 9 coconut trees. 2. The petitioner, Thiru T. Sakthivel, has encroached upon the canal to an extent of 0.23 Acre Part and there are 15 coconut trees. No canal in the land measuring 0.16.5 part In this canal, under the Parambikulam Azhiyar Irrigation Programme, water was running. The respondent, Thiru S. Myilsamy, in his punja land, in Survey No. 344/5A1B, measuring 0.42.5 Hectare, has dug up a new well measuring South-North 6mts (19 ft) x East-West 5 mts (16 ft) (L x B) with depth of 24 ft middle. Near the vicinity of the well, South by 15 mts, North by 6 mts, East by 20 mts, West by 12 mts, there were braided coconut leaves in between the iron rods. There was no water in the well, and only rocks were found. Heap of rocks and sand removed from the well were placed near the well. Houses in the abovesaid Survey Numbers, Cow-shed, Wells, Coconut Trees, Patta Cart-Track and others, were not affected. In this land and in the above mentioned lands, belonging to writ petitioners and Mr. V. Kandasany Gounder and Mr. S. Sarathram, no high tension electric wires were passing. Heap of rocks and sand removed from the well were placed near the well. Houses in the abovesaid Survey Numbers, Cow-shed, Wells, Coconut Trees, Patta Cart-Track and others, were not affected. In this land and in the above mentioned lands, belonging to writ petitioners and Mr. V. Kandasany Gounder and Mr. S. Sarathram, no high tension electric wires were passing. The distance between the well in S. No. 344/5A1B and other houses, borewells, Cow-dung, patta cart-track, Public Works Department‘s canal in between distance, is given below: Sl.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Survey No. and the respective things In Survey No. 344/6, one recently constructed tiled roof house built with hollow blocks stones, without door number In Survey No. 344/6, one Asbestos sheet and tiled roof house with Door No. 4/184 In Survey No. 344/6, one Cow shed In Survey No. 344/6, one well In Survey No. 344/6, one borewell In Survey No. 344/1B, one tiled roof house along with Asbes- tos sheet in front, with Door No. 4/185 Distance In between 24.2 mts length In between 110 mts length In between 84 mts length In between 98 mts length In between 78 mts length In between 50 mts length 7 In Survey No. 344/2A, from East-West 2B In between 6 mts length canal to West 1B, there is a patta cart-track 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 In Survey No. 344/2A, one Well In Survey No. 344/2A, a recently formed cow house measur- ing 2.6m x 5m In Survey No. 344/1A, a tiled roof house with door No. 4/186 In Survey No. 344/5A1B, one borewell In Survey No. 344/5A1B, another borewell In Survey No. 344/5A1B, one well In Survey No. 344/5A2, Public Work Department‘s Canal (dug canal none is running it is encroached) In Survey No. 344/5B, Public Work Department‘s Canal (un- der Perambikularm Azhiyar Irrigation Project, water is run- ning) In between 79 mts length In between 12 mts length In between 103 mts length In between 40 mts length In between 80 mts length In between 80 mts length In between 55 mts length In between 98 mts length Along with copies of the village accounts together with survey sketch were submitted. Sd/- Deputy Collector, (Providing Free Colour Television Set Scheme) District Collectorate, Coimbatore District. 41 A plan of the site as veil as other records have been produced before this Court. Sd/- Deputy Collector, (Providing Free Colour Television Set Scheme) District Collectorate, Coimbatore District. 41 A plan of the site as veil as other records have been produced before this Court. The details contained in the reports are self-explanatory that by digging up of a new well, by using explosives on 22.12.2010, there is a threat of damage to the pathway, houses, cattle shed and coconut trees. The distance between the well and the Shalais, as well as channel, as per the reports submitted in this Court, clearly indicate that the apprehension of the writ petitioners, is not well founded. 42 Rule 107 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, deals with grant of licence and certificate, has stated as follows: “ 107. Grant of a licence and certificate.- (1) The icensing authority, on being satisfied with the documents received for grant of licence, and after making soon inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act and these rules, by order in writing either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same. (2)A copy each of every licence other than for import or export of explosives granted by the Chief the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police of the District and the Controller in whose jurisdiction the premises are situated. (3)When the licensing authority grants a license other than for export or import of explosives, after conducting inspection of the premises to ensure conformity of the premises to the provisions of the Act and these rules, such authority shall endores the licence and from the date of such endorsement, the licence shall come into force. Provided that if the licensing authority grants a licence without conducting prior inspection, such authority shall issue provisional permission pending endorsement of licence to use the licensed premises for a period which the licensing authority may require for conducting inspection of the premises for endorsement the licence. (4)If the licensing authority observes, on inspection, that the premises do not conform to the provisions of the Act end these rules and not fit for endorsement, he shall communicate to the licensee, (i)(ii)(iii)(5)In case of application for grant, of shot firer‘s certificate, the Controller on receipt of documents specified in item number 24 of Rule 113 shall conduct such examination and enquiries as deemed necessary before granting the shot-firer‘s certificate. On his being satisfied that the applicant has adequate knowledge and experience in related field of handling and blasting explosives, he shall grant the shot firer‘s certificate in Form LE-10 specifying therein the authorised area and category of bleeting. Such certificate shall be valid for a period of five years from the date of issue. The certificate may be revalidated for subsequent five year periods on completion of proceedured as in the case of fresh grant. Explanation: For the purposes of this sub rule, there shall be the following categorise of blasting, namely Class Category A Unlimited B General above- ground C General under- ground D Demolition E Saismic F Agricultural G Special Type of blasting permitted All types of blasting All phases of aboveground blasting operation All phases of underground blasting operation All phases of blasting in demolition projects All phases of blasting in salsmic prospecting or production All phases of blasting in agricultural and well sinking Blasting for special purpose not covered under the above categories (6)In case of applicacipn for grant of foreman‘s certificate, ths Controller on receipt of documents specified in item number 25 of Rule 113 shall conduct such examination and enquiries as deemed neceeeary before granting the foreman‘s certificate. On his being satisfied that the applicant has adequate knowledge and experience in related field of handling and blasting explosives, LE-11 specifying therein the authorised area of manufactures. Such certificate shall be valid for a period of five years from the date os issue. The certificate may be revalidated for subsequent five years periods on completion of procetures as in the case of fresh grant. (7)The District Authority shall forward of copy of every licence granted by him in Form LE-1, LE-2, LE-3, LE-4 and LE-5 to the Controller having jurisdiction over the area. (8)Wherever licence is granted in Form LE-1 for manufacture of fireworks by the District Authority, he shall ensure that such licence is issued for manufacture of only such fireworks item which are authorised by the Chief Controller.” 43 From the above materials and records, it is abundantly clear that there is no deviation from the provisions of the Act and the rules and the rules and that the second respondent has followed the procedure and taken into account the safety and likelihood of damage to the inhabitants, cattle shed and other aspects and granted the licence subject to the conditions. Even after the blast on 22.10.2010, the Deputy Collector, Coimbatore, hag personally inspected the site on 2.2.2011 and submitted a detailed report to this Court. No gross procedural violation of illegality has been noticed, in contravention of the and the Rules made thereunder. In view of the above, the petitioner has not made out a strong case for interference with the impugned order. 44 In the result, the interim order granted on 6.1.2011 is vacated and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. 45 After passing of the order, the learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that as the period of licence has expired, a direction may be issued to the respondents to permit the licence to use the explosives. As this Court has held that there is no material irregularity or contravention of the rules, the respondents, particularly, the second respondent is directed to consider the report of the petitioner to grant permission to use explosives to dig up the new well, as per the provisions of Rule 107 of the explosive Rules. It is to be noted that there is a proviso, enabling the competent authority to grant permission, after an inspection is made. As the conditions have been already satisfied for grant of licence, the request of the petitioner be considered forthwith, taking into consideration the agricultural operations, intended to be carried out by the third respondent.