W.P.No.4219 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.03.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.No.4219 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.4709, 4710, 4711 & 9313 of 2025 K.R.TRANS FUELS PRIVATE LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFF AT: NO.20, LAWSON'S ROAD, CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPALLI, TAMIL NADU- 620 001. REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.J. VENKATESH. ... Petitioner Vs 1. THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, PETROLEUM & EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION, SECOND FLOOR, B- BLOCK, SHASTRI BHAVAN, 26, HADDOWS ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI- 600 006. 2. M/S. CHELLIES ENTERPRISES, S.NO.103/3D, KONERI KARAI, KANDHAMPATTY BYPASS, SALEM- 636 005. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MR.N.SRIDHAR. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records leading to the issuance of the impugned order vide Ref. No.S/HO/TN/05/42(S31732) 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4219 of 2025 dated 17.01.2025 issued by the first respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to consider the representation dated 18.01.2025 issued by the petitioner to the first respondent after providing an opportunity for personal hearing. For Petitioner : Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.P.Giridharan For R1 : Mr.R.P.Pragadish Central Government Counsel For R2 : Mr.V.B.R.Menon ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order vide Ref. No.S/HO/TN/05/42(S31732) dated 17.01.2025. 2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that, by the said order, the petitioner was found at fault for not degassing the premises. The petitioner contends that there was no feasibility at the relevant point in time and before it could be done, the impugned order was passed. 3. When the matter came up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing on both sides agreed that a fresh license to carry on business in the 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4219 of 2025 same premises has already been granted to the second respondent. The second respondent has also completed the degassing and a certificate of degassing has been issued. Therefore, the dispute, for all practical purposes, is over. The only apprehension expressed is that the findings in the impugned order and the non-compliance should not be held against the petitioner. 4. Since this Court is not deciding on the merits of the validity or otherwise of the impugned order and is closing the writ petition only based on subsequent events, the non-compliance mentioned in the impugned order and that the degassing was done by the second respondent and not by the petitioner can never be held against the petitioner in any proceedings. It cannot debar the petitioner from participating in any tender for any license whatsoever. 5. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 13.03.2025 Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsl 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4219 of 2025 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. nsl To THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, PETROLEUM & EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION, SECOND FLOOR, B- BLOCK, SHASTRI BHAVAN, 26, HADDOWS ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI- 600 006. W.P.No.4219 of 2025 13.03.2025 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis