2017 (5) TMI 1772 - HC - Customs

Seeking to remove all the material i.e. all obnoxious chemical/gas, any explosive material and any other material which could cause health hazard to the public in the vicinity - seeking release of all the containers from the site in a phased manner - allowance of fresh containers at a particular site or not - submission of Disaster Management plan mitigate any emergency/disaster - undertaking to the effect that no container having obnoxious chemical/gas/explosive be allowed at the site, which may lead to any disaster. HELD THAT - What has been prayed for is that the order dated 09.05.2017 be modified to the extent that only the containers having chemicals/gases/explosive materials or any other material which could cause health hazard to the public in the vicinity be removed within a reasonable period and that the direction under (b) and (c) be put in abeyance till further orders. Issue notice. Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned senior standing counsel accepts notice. Status report be filed on or before the next date - Till that date, the directions passed in item Nos.(b) (c) of the order impugned is kept in abeyance. Relist on 11.05.2017.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Petitioner aggrieved by order under Section 133 Cr.P.C - Directions to remove hazardous materials, release containers, halt new containers, submit disaster plan, and file undertaking. Dispute over releasing all containers and accepting new ones due to national interest.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a case where the petitioner, a government undertaking with an Inland Container Depot, challenged an order passed by a Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 Cr.P.C. The order directed the removal of hazardous materials, phased release of containers, suspension of new containers, submission of a disaster management plan, and filing of an undertaking. The petitioner contended that while it agreed with removing hazardous materials and submitting a disaster plan, the directions to release all containers and stop accepting new ones were unwarranted and harsh. The petitioner argued that it had been diligent in storing containers with dangerous substances and that not all containers posed a risk. It was highlighted that the depot stored various commodities essential for transportation across the country, and a blanket order to remove all containers would be detrimental to national interest.

The petitioner sought modification of the order to only remove containers with hazardous materials within a reasonable period and requested to suspend the directions regarding releasing all containers and halting new ones until further orders. The Court issued notice to the respondent and directed the filing of a status report. Pending further proceedings, the Court kept the directions related to releasing and accepting containers in abeyance. The petitioner assured the Court of providing information on the number of containers at the depot and how many contained hazardous materials before the next hearing date. The case was scheduled for a re-listing, and necessary documents were to be provided under the supervision of the Court Master.