Why Gujarat High Court called Bharuch Collector "illiterate"

The Gujarat High Court on Friday pulled up Bharuch’s district collector for filing a vague affidavit in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging violations of safety norms by ammonium nitrate storage units [Pathan Nazimkhan Mohammad Khan v State of Gujarat and Ors.]

A Bench of Chief Justice (CJ) Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray said that the collector was "illiterate", unaware about relevant rules and lacked knowledge even about his own powers.

“So you are an illiterate person. You are the Collector... but you are an illiterate person. You are not aware of the rules which you are supposed to follow...He doesn't know! His own powers he doesn't know!," Chief Justice Agarwal said.

The plea before the Court alleged that industrial units engaged in storage and processing of ammonium nitrate (highly explosive substance) were operating in violation of mandatory safety norms in the district.

The chemical at the centre of this case has long been treated as a hazardous substance under Indian law. It is listed under the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989, framed in the aftermath of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and is further governed by the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012.

According to the petition, the regulations impose a strict licensing regime and lay down detailed safeguards for its manufacture, storage, transport, and handling, recognising the compound’s highly reactive and explosive potential.

Enforcement of these rules, as per the plea, falls primarily on the Chief Controller of Explosives, functioning under the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO), along with district authorities such as the District Magistrate (collector) and local police.

The plea warned that any lapse in compliance could have catastrophic consequences, particularly in densely industrialised regions where large quantities of Ammonium Nitrate are handled in close proximity to other hazardous operations, and residential areas.

The Court rejected the affidavit placed before it by the collector and noted that even prior to the 2012 Rules, ammonium nitrate fell within the regulatory ambit of the Explosives Rules, 2008, and that safety norms could not be disregarded for older units.

The Court questioned whether the State had taken any action on earlier reports revealing violation of the norms.

“This statement on affidavit is vague, in as much as there is no clarity as to which unit was found non-compliant of the prescribed safety norms. It seems that there is nothing on record, there is nothing in the affidavit of the District Collector which would reveal any action taken by the District Magistrate or the Collector on the reports dated 19/3/2025 and 23/3/2026,” it said.

The Court doubted a fresh report obtained by the authorities as it appeared to contradict earlier findings of violations without adequate explanation. Further, the Court criticised a State counsel for filing such vague affidavit before it.

“You're not the mouthpiece of the officers. By filing this type of affidavit, you become the mouthpiece of the officers, though you are an advocate,” said the Court.

“We are keeping our patience, that doesn't mean that you can take us for granted,” it added.

When the counsel sought to withdraw the affidavit and file a fresh one, the Court refused to permit it, observing,

“We will not permit you to withdraw it simply.”

The Court said that the key issue was not merely which rules applied but whether the prescribed safety norms for storage of explosives were actually being followed.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate, Ankleshwar to conduct a fresh inspection of the respondent units, taking into account the applicable rules over time.

It further directed the collector to independently examine the findings and file a fresh affidavit along with an action taken report in case any violations are found. The matter has been posted for further hearing in June.

Advocate Parv Gupta appeared for the petitioner.

Assistant Government Pleader Maithili Mehta represented the State.

Advocate Pradip D Bhate and Ankit Shah appeared on behalf of the Health and Family Welfare Department.

Advocate Chintan Dave represented one other respondent.