2004 PLP 1022 (MLD)

The Inspector of Explosive has filed parawise comments in Court today and contended inter alia that permission to store petroleum was granted to the respondent No.3 on the basis of the report ‑of the District Authorities. We may clarify here that the law confers a duty upon the Chief Inspector of Explosive or an Inspector nominated by him grant licence and the Licensing Authority is required to apply his mind independently to all facts and circumstances and not to act mechanically in granting licences. Likewise, the report of the District Authorities as a pre‑condition for grant of licence is required to enable the Licensing Authorities to know the ground reality in every area and such Authorities are required to act independently on the basis of existing facts instead of the merely following earlier reports. Nevertheless learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to refer to any provision of law contemplating that no licence for storage of petroleum would be granted in a residential area under any statute. We are, therefore, unable to hold that the grant of licence to store petroleum in favour of the respondent No.3 is illegal. At the same time, however, an equally important question has arisen on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The petitioner has alleged and the respondent No.2 has admitted that five (5) plots were amalgamated and construction thereon was raised by the respondent No.3 without duly approved plan sanctioned by the respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 has not been able to deny this position. In this context, it is also brought on record that the building was sealed vide order of the Deputy Controller of Building dated 9‑1‑2003. However, upon an appeal preferred against the aforesaid order by the respondent No.3 under section 16 of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance the Appellate Authority passed an ad interim order be sealing the building which was extended up to 25‑2‑2003. The appeal still reported to be pending. Be that as it may, there is no operative order sealing the premises and even if the appeal preferred by the respondent No.3 is allowed its effect would be that the original order of sealing would .be held to be unlawful. The facts nevertheless remain that the respondent No.3 is using a building which was constructed without an approved plan and put to use without an occupancy certificate in flagrant violation of law. We would, therefore, allow three (3) months time to the respondent No.3 to remove the oil from the building and thereafter the respondents Nos.2 and 5 would be required to comply with their obligation under the law and demolish illegal construction. The respondents Nos.2 and 5 however, will ensure that the oil stored be transferred to a safe place. The respondent No. 3 would be at liberty to submit a fresh building plan for construction. The petition stands disposed of alongwith listed application. H. B. T./T-5/K Order accordingly.