HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.11403 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the order dated 04-11-2010 in M.C.No.24 of 201, on the file of the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Nagari, wherein the learned Magistrate directed closure of the stone crusher and also stopping of the mining operations carried out in the quarries of M/ Velmurugan Blue Metald, Sathrawada village, by promulgating orders under Section 133 Cr.P.C. The Station House Officer, Nagari was directed to implement the said order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the records. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner-stone crushing unit, a proprietary firm, obtained licence under Explosives Rules, 2009 for using the explosives during the course of the stone quarry operations and the said licence is valid up to 31-03-2014 and, therefore, the petitioner is authorized to use the said explosive substances. He would further contend that the Government of India, Commerce and Industry permitted the petitioner to use the explosives from magazines at Sy.Nos.106/1A, 106/1B. 106/1C, 106/1E of Satrawada village and is, therefore, entitled to carry out the stone crushing operations in his own patta land. He would further submit that the Tahasildar, Nagari also issued No Objection Certificate on 10-09-2009, as the stone crushing operations were carried on at a distance of 2 kms from Satrawada and 5 kms from Nagari town. He would contend that the Gram Panchayat also passed resolution stating no objection for blasting operations being conducted by the petitioner and the District Revenue Officer issued No Objection Certificate on 07-12-2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the first respondent without issuing any notice or opportunity passed the impugned prohibitory order directing closure of the business of the petitioner. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that the Village Revenue Officer, Adivikothur received a message that a woman and two children who were members of the same family and residing in Gundepalle, hamlet of Adivikothur, died due to collapse of house wall on account of the vibrations caused due to the use of high range explosives by the petitioner while carrying out the stone crushing operations and the Village Revenue Officer during enquiry observed huge cracks on the walls of the residential houses in the villages as the quarries were situate at a distance of half a kilometre from the village. Based on the report of the Village Revenue Officer, the learned Executive Magistrate issued the impugned order under Section 133 Cr.P.C., as the mining operations carried on by the petitioner using high power explosives was endangering the lives of the villagers, besides causing loss of property to them. 5. The impugned order shows that it was issued on the basis of a report submitted by the Village Revenue Officer to the effect that because of the user of high power explosives by the petitioner while carrying on the stone crushing operations, the houses of the residents of Gundepalle, hamlet of Adivikothur village, suffered huge cracks on the walls and one of the houses even collapsed, resulting in the death of a woman and two children. The impugned order also shows that the stone crushing operations were carried on by the petitioner at a distance of half a kilometre from the village. Even assuming for a moment that the petitioner started the stone crushing operations only after obtaining necessary licences and clearances from the authorities concerned, still any such activity on the part of the petitioner that endangers the human life and posses severe threat to the very existence of the human dwellings in the vicinity cannot, under any circumstances, be permitted or be allowed to be continued. When once it comes to the notice of the authorities that the petitioner has been using high power explosives for the purpose of blasting in the course of stone crushing operations, which resulted in emission of high range vibrations that caused collapse of human dwelling leading to death of three persons in the family residing therein, besides resulting in emergence of cracks on the walls of other houses and thereby posing imminent threat of collapse, the authorities are expected to act decisively so as to prevent further loss of life or property. The impugned order, which was issued on the basis of report of the Village Revenue Officer who enquired into the cause of death of three persons on the spot, prima facie shows that the deaths on account of collapse of the house was a direct sequel to the stone crushing operations carried on by the petitioner, using high power explosives at a distance of only half a kilometer from the human dwellings. 6. The question as to whether or not the petitioner used explosives of permissible range only and whether or not the stone crushing operations were carried on beyond the minimum prescribed distance from the human dwellings, are all matters to be considered after due enquiry. The impugned order issued by the learned Magistrate with a view to prevent further loss of human life and property is perfectly justified in the circumstances of the case which warranted immediate stoppage of the stone crushing operations. It is open to the petitioner to appear before the learned Executive Magistrate and file objections and show cause as to why the orders should not be made absolute. Section 135 Cr.P.C mandates that the person against whom the order is made shall perform the act directed thereby or to appear and show cause against the order. Section 136 states that if such person does not do such act or appear and show cause, he shall be liable to penalty prescribed in that behalf in Section 188 IPC and the orders shall be made absolute. 7. No doubt the impugned order does not fix any date for appearance of the petitioner and to file his objections. On that ground itself, the impugned order cannot be quashed, especially when the said order is intended to prevent imminent danger to human life and to the property. When the act complained of is posing imminent threat to the very existence of the human dwellings and endangering the lives of the persons residing therein, the perpetrators of such acts cannot be permitted to take shelter under technicalities. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall appear before the learned Executive Magistrate, Nagari within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file his objections and show cause as to why the said order shall not be made absolute and the learned Executive Magistrate shall consider the objections filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two weeks thereafter. Till such time, the impugned order directing closure of the stone crusher and stopping the mining operations shall remain in force. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is disposed of accordingly with the above directions. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th November,2010 Lrkm. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.11403 OF 2010 Between:- M/s Velmurgan Blue Metals, Rep. by its Proprietor S.Subramanyam. …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondents