Telangana HC impleads Hyderabad Police Commissioner over blasting approvals

Telangana HC expressed displeasure over the State’s delay in clarifying competent authority for blasting permissions in Hyderabad. The bench impleaded the Police Commissioner, questioned safety standards, and posted the matter to September 23 for a detailed response

Hyderabad: Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday expressed displeasure over the State government’s failure to promptly clarify the competent authority for granting blasting permissions in the city, observing that the issue could have been resolved “within 24 hours.”

The bench, hearing a suo motu PIL based on a news report about continuous blasting at Jubilee Hills, impleaded the Hyderabad Police Commissioner as a party to the case and issued notices.

---

The bench questioned whether technical expertise and mandatory safety standards were being considered while the Commissioner of Police issued No Objection Certificates (NOCs) for blasting. “Explosives? Where is the expertise? Who sets the parameters, who defines the criteria? These details are missing,” the bench observed.

The Court stressed that blasting permissions must account for vibration levels, flying debris, noise pollution, and proximity to sensitive institutions such as schools, hospitals, and utilities, warning that any lapse could have grave consequences. It also questioned whether the Police Commissioner was factoring in inputs from technical agencies such as the Chief Controller of Explosives (CCoE) and the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) before granting approvals.

Additional Advocate General Mohd. Imran Khan informed the Court that the State had already sought clarifications from PESO and CCoE. He added that the Commissioner had forwarded certain instructions, but they were incomplete. He also said that blasting at the Jubilee Hills site had been stopped, and revenue authorities were examining whether it occurred on government land and whether nearby businesses and residents were affected.

The bench made it clear that it expected a detailed and complete reply from the State on safety procedures and posted the matter to September 23 for further hearing.