PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY/ TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER & ROAD SAFETY COMMISSIONER CHEPAUK, CHENNAI ~ 600005. Present: THIRU. TENKASI 5 JAWAHAR, LA.S., R.No: 7607/M2/2020 dated: 29.04.2021 SUB: Transport Department - The Petroleum Act, 1934 and Rules REF: ‘ORDER: 2002 -Petition filed by T.Dinesh, former dealer, Indian Oil Corporation Limited against M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, in the matter of Indian Oll Corporation Retail Outlet at 68/78 Vedapalayam Village, Uthiramerur, Kanchipuram District -Appeal based on the facts recorded during the removal of three underground storage tanks - orders issued. 1. Petition dated 31.01.2021 filed by T.Dinesh, elaborating the material facts and violations of the Petroleum Act & Rules, after the underground storage tanks were removed from 29.12.2020 to 31.12.2020, 2.The Vakkalat filed by M/s. AAV Partners on behalf of respondents M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 19.02.2021 3.Report filed by the Regional Transport officer, Kanchipuram. 4. Copy of the letter of Revenue Inspector, Uthiramerur addressed to District Collector, Kanchipuram (handed over in person by Revenue Inspector, Uthiramerur) 5. Letter dated 19.02.2021 from Thiru T.Gobishankar land 6.Report filed by the Inspector of Police, Uthiramerur on 10.03.2021. 7. Reply dated 09.03.2021 filed by M/s Indian oil Corporation Limited on 10.03.2021. In the reference 1* cited, Thiru T.Dinesh , who was a dealer of Indian Oll Corporation Limited at Uthiramerur, Kanchipuram District, has filed ‘complaint petition against the respondent, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited (LOCL).This proceedings is limited to the "Removal of the three UndergroundStorage Tanks and the allied violations”.The Transport commissioner has already looked into the facts with regard to the "Underground storage tanks” in the previous proceedings. The repeated proceedings before the Transport Commissioner and The District Revenue Officer have resulted in emergence of new facts and violations by M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Limited due to incorrect information/clalms on policy on size of land required to operate the retail outlet as per State Highway department and as per the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoP&NG), mistake in lease deed, underground storage tanks foundation/laying violation, some records in the form of Inspection report, @ public document, is missing which is used to ascertain the ‘operational lapses which is substantiated by the RTI records. The termination of lease deed on 13.01.2021 which the Commission found Is the 2" issue which needs to be considered while passing this order. The petitioner, T.Dinesh and respondents M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited have filed petitions multiple times in the past and the following facts are shortlisted: 19.09.2011 In proceedings p.s.stair:45091/2010, dated 19.09.2011, the DRO, Kanchipuram, had cancelled the NOC given to 1OCL with legal right of 5440 sq.ft. Through lease deed, enclosed 2 drawing in the lease deed for 6524 sq.ft and constructed the retail outlet In 6756 sq.ft violating the State highways norms laid in condition (8). The petitioner have submitted that “ifthe tanks are re-laid the petitioner is not intended to request NOC cancellation", the NOC was obtained by submitting the lease deed for 5440 sq.ft. and by enclosing the diagram for 6524 sq ft which was not intimated to this office. 05.07.2012 Inthe proceedings no.(Qeuxigpan aymnam se) 26178/M5/2012 dated 05.07.2012 of the Transport Commissioner, citing time delay, it is evident that Thiru T.Dinesh, the dealer and Thiru T.Gobi Shankar, land owner were not listed as parties.21.09.2012 21.12.2012 08.01.2013 05.12.2014 02.12.2016 a In the Orders of the Honourable High Court in W.P No 25006 ‘of 2012 where in High Court condoned the time delay and remitted the subject matter back to Transport Commissioner. It is evident from the copy of the order that Thiru T.Dinesh, the dealer and Thiru T.Gobi Shankar, land owner were not listed as parties. In the Transport Commissioner letter No. 26178/M5/2012, dated 21.12.2012 to consider issuing NOC for 5440 sq ft of the land; It is evident that Thiru T.Dinesh, the dealer and ‘Thiru T.Gobi Shankar, land owner were not listed as parties. ‘Termination Letter of Dealership agreement of the petitioner T.Dinesh for not selling 20,000 litre petrol and 60000 titre diesel by unloading in faultily laid tanks and informing the Government on land and public safety violation. In proceeding RC. 45091/2010/M3 the Order of the District Revenue officer of the Revenue and Disaster Management department citing “licensee has ceased to have any right”, “as district authority in his opinion such violation is likely to ‘cause imminent danger to the public”, “every tank to be ‘constructed approved by the Indian standard institution or approved in writing by the chief controller” and finally “The height of the storage tank shall not be exceeded one and a half times its diameter or 20 meters whichever is less. A certificate of safety in the proforma signed by a competent person shall be furnished to the licensing Authority before any petroleum Is stored in an installation or a service station for the first time or whenever any additions or alterations to the enclosure wall and embankment or carried out or when any tank is installed or its position shifted”. In proceeding R.No. 64791/M5/2016 the NOC cancellation ‘appeal was upheld citing “the Lease deed was not ratified inspite of recording in 19.09.2011 order” and also upheld the decision of the DRO order dated 05.12.2016.Representation of T.Dinesh (The Dealer of the Retail Outlet): T.Dinesh was the dealer of IOCL at Uthiramerur, Kanchipuram District, “A” site Retall Outlet was allotted to him, with the agreement that 10C will built the retail outlet, install dispensing pump, underground tank in 2 land with legal right as per NOC and Explosive License and charge Licence fees. The Initial Explosive License/token of approval plan was approved on 20.2.2006 by The Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO). In all the documents, the underground storage tanks foundation design was “Matraft” for all the 3 underground storage tanks. IOCL has _unauthorisedly changed the tank foundation design in the work order dt 20.11.2006 from Matraft to Strip raft only for 2 x 20000 Its diesel tanks and laid 1x15000 Its petrol tank as per NOC in Matraft, The Explosives license dt. 12.07.2007 was granted by PESO after IOCL gave a Certificate of Safety as per Rule 130 and confirms the tank test as per Rule 126 of the petroleum rules 2002 that the tank foundation was constructed as per Matraft design as in Initial & final Explosives License, NOC application & in NOC. The Panchayat plan was approved for drawing wherein all the 3 tanks foundation is "Matraft”. During the operations there were 3 fire accidents and multiple pipe line leaks and requested to "Relay the Underground storage tanks” since the leaks was due to tilt in tank resulting in 8000 litre of loss of fuel including 2977 litre in the Inspection carried on 10.07.2008, 4+ holes in the pipe line kept open from 2008 onwards after Revenue department objections. There was safety threat ue to leaked fuel, Quantity violation due to short measurement to customers ‘and Quality violations due to water getting into customers vehicle. The Explosives License was not amended as per the letter dated 22.12.2012 wherein PESO requested IOCL to submit Rule 130 & 126 Certificates it was not done till date, The attempts to “Relay” the tanks legal notice, Minutes of Meeting recorded and National Commission for Scheduled Caste advice highlighting the tank construction violation, RTI records confirm other issues MoP&NG to operate a RO with less than 30.5x30.5 mts. The Road in which the pump is located was converted to a State Highway (SH-118) from Major District Road which attracts Tamilnadu State Highway Norms of 30*30 Meters,Non Ratification of Lease deed, Certificate of safety Violation, The Loss of fuel Inspection report (nearly 8000 Its,) is missing from IOCL records to mislead the government authorities & operate the retail outlet the sales officer tour program and TA bills records will prove the IOCL fraudulent acts. The duty of the citizen prolong as long as the apprehend danger is continuing Indian Penal Code Sec 97 (Right of private defence of the body and of property) &102 (Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body), 1am a Whistle Blower of this safety violation & Imminent danger. In facts in regard to the underground storage tanks removal between 29", 30" and 31° December 2020 he have placed the below facts fa. The Petrol Tank with capacity of 15000 Its foundation was *MATRAFT” ‘as per NOC & Explosives License approved drawing, The Tank clamps was loose and Its disintegrated/split from the Matraft concrete structure and there was huge sand between the Tank and Matraft, possible reason for tank tilt. The dozer/JCB couldn't break the “Matraft" concrete and the foundation was confirmed by hitting the concrete using the Dozer/JCB to confirm the *Matraft” foundation. b. The 2 numbers of diesel tanks of capacity 20,000 Its each underground storage Tanks, foundation was “STRIP RAFT” in violation of NOC, Explosives License and amendment Explosives License approved drawing dt. 22.12.2008 and Is against certificate of safety, When the dozer/JCB bucket was placed in between and pulled the complete Strip raft foundation broke and was easily pulled up confirming the fragile foundation, reason attributed for tank tilt and breakage of Joints. The 2 diesel tanks are beneath the surface of the heavy vehicle driveway. The tank was water logged with nearly 4000 Its In each tank which prevents the dealer from unloading the tanker lofty fuel into water logged tank. The law of gravitation will tend the tank in the drive way to tit. ited: ‘The respondent M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited represented by Representation of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Mr.Mithilesh Bhat, Sales Officer and Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager hadfiled vakkalat through their advocate M/s. AAV Partners and also filed the reply dated 09.03.2021. The approval for the retail outlet, NOC and Explosives License was secured in the name of IOCL. The lease was only for 5440 sq ft and T.Dinesh was also a witness to the lease deed. Pursuant to construction of retail outlet T,Dinesh was appointed as dealer as per SC category dealership. M/s TOCL has submitted that from the year 2008, dealer started complaining about the stock loss. Periodical inspections of the stocks were made by the corporation and it was found that the stock loss was not beyond the permissible limit, As per the rules and regulation in constructing the retail outlet, corporation had placed the underground storage tanks of MS (Petrol) in mat raft bed and for HSD and Xtramile tanks strip Raft concrete bed was provided. Mean while the company had provided corpus fund loan to Petitioner for a sum of Rs. 6,46,874/- with an interest of 11% pa in 100 instalments. But the petitioner has not repaid this loan til date and he stopped sales/operation of the retail outlet from 12.12.2008 onwards. Subsequently the dealer and the Lessor, the land owner made complaint before the DRO, Kanchipuram which resulted in order of cancelling the NOC on 19.09.2011, for reasons of usage of excess land to that what was leased to IOCL and construction of approach road higher than the main road, The appellate authority, the Transport Commissioner rejected the appeal on the ground of delay; the High Court set aside the order and remitted back to appellate authority, the appellate authority remitted back the matter to the District Revenue Officer for fresh consideration of the entire issue. The learned DRO passed order dated 05.12.2014 confirming the order dated 19.09.2011. The appellate authority passed order dated 02.12.2016 as such there Is no NOC in favour of the corporation as per the Petroleum act to operate the Retall outlet. Based on the High Court order dated 14.10.2020 in Crl O.P No 26771 of 2019 the tanks were removed on 30.12.2020 and 30.12.2021 and lease deed was cancelled dated 13.01.2021 registered as document No 81 of 2021. M/s Indian Oil Corporation has now pleaded to dismiss the appeal petition and listed the objections that T.Dinesh don’t have any locus standi to file the present appeal petition and also this petition Is barred from under Rule 154 (3) of the Petroleum rules, 2002. T.Dinesh also moved an application A.No 2480 of 2018In 0.P. No 482 of 2017 seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the closed retail outiet and to note the allegations levelled in the present appeal. The said application was withdrawn by him on 21.01.2020. ‘The corporation states that in order to achieve what he was not able to achieve in Court has filed the present appeal. The Corporation further objects that T.Dinesh Is trying to misuse the power of the appellate authority for his Intentions which are not bonafide. In regard to the underground storage tanks removal during 29" 30" and 31 December 2020 Mr. Mithilesh Bhat, Sales Officer, IOCL was present and have decided not to reply on the fact in regard to foundation as built of three tanks, one 15000 litre petrol tank and two 20000 litre diesel tanks or presence of water only in 20000 litre diesel tanks. Mr. Abishek Sharma, General Manager (Retail Sales), IOCL had filed the above facts in the form of written reply. Reply of other witness Mr. T.Gobishankar, Land owner, The RTO, Kanchipuram and The Revenue Inspector, Uthiramerur, Kanchipuram District. (i) The Land owner T, Gobi Shankar Vide his written statement dated 19.02.2021 the Land owner thiru T.Gobi Shankar confirms that the petrol 15000 Its tank was placed on “MATRAFT™ the tank clamps was loose and significant amount of soil found between the tank and concrete matraft and the attempt to break the foundation resulted in only scratching sound confirming the Matraft foundation. In regard to 2 diesel tanks water was found in both the tanks and which was pumped out for nearly 20 minutes and confirmed that the JCB dug the foundation and lifted the bucket the entire foundation came with the bucket on 2" and 3” attempt thereby confirming the underground storage tanks was over “STRIPRAFT” foundation and is a violation of certificate of safety, Rule 130 of the petroleum Rules 2002 and tanks were laid in violation of NOC and Explosives License. The land owner also recorded that it’s based on his lease deed wherein explicitly he permitted and allowed the lessee (Indian Oil) to erect the tanks, thus his permission was misused to install the tanks faultily.a) ional Tran: fficer, Kanchi Under instructions from this office vide letter dated 24.12.2020 Thiru N.Thinakaran, Regional Transport Officer, Kanchipuram witnessed the removal of the 3 underground storage tanks and have sent his findings vide his letter dated 06.01.2021 and submitted in person the copy as part of this proceedings on 19.02.2021. The report reads as follows; “I Jointly Inspected the said IOC fuel bunk site on 29.12.2020, 30.12.2020 and 31.12.2021 Uthiramerur police _ inspector Mr.Venkatesh, Revenue Inspector Mrs.Priya , IOC official Mr. Mithllesh M.Bhat, sales officer, Kancheepuram -2 (RSA) marketing Division , fuel Bunk dealer Mr. T.Dinesh were present. ‘The petrol 15 K.L. Tank foundation was MATRAFT foundation, while removing the tanks the tank clamps were loose and disintegrated from the concrete bed structure. The concrete bed mat raft foundation could not be broken by heavy machines (Cranes & JCB) and was closed without the moving. The other two diesel tanks were filled with water and that was pumped out. It took 20 minutes to pump to out. Those two Diesel tanks foundations were STRIP RAFT type. Two entire strips of concrete foundation structures could be pulled out easily by the machines (Cranes & JCB), Those two diesel tanks were resting on those strips of concrete structures” (ill) The other witness Mrs. S.Priya, Revenue Inspector limited herself she along with VAO and Village assistant were present during the removal of underground storage tanks they have handed over the copy of the report submitted to The District Collector, Kanchipuram on 19.02.2021 in person, there Is no information in regard to underground tanks. (iv) The Inspector of Police, Uthiramerur Mr. E.Vekatesan on submitted ‘a written statement dated 10.03.2021 stating that he did protection duty ‘along with other officials and there was no un toward incidents. There Is no Information disclosed on the three underground storage tank foundation designs or its violation.Now having heard the Petitioner, Respondents and the witnesses and on Perusing all the written submissions before us as below; (1) This office carried out inspection under Petroleum Act 1934 u/s Sec 13 Inspection of places and recorded the following, the official of this office specifically requested to monitor and witness the removal of the underground storage tanks and record the foundation design to confirm the violation if any, a). Thiru N.Thinakaran, Regional Transport Officer, Kanchipuram, Thiru T.Dinesh the petitioner and ThiruT.Gobishankar land owner confirmed that 3 underground storage tanks were removed and 2 diesel tanks was placed in STRIP RAFT and one petrol tank was placed In MAT RAFT and presence of water in the 2 diesel tanks and the tank clamps were loose. ThiruT.Dinesh and ThiruT.Gobishankar confirmed the presence of sand In between the tank and foundation. b). The statutory records token of approval Explosives License dated 20.02.2006, NOC granted by DRO, Kanchipuram Dated 20.11.2006, Explosives License dated 12.07.2007 and amendment of Explosives license dated 22.12.2008 where in it is found in all the four records that the three underground storage tanks foundation design approved is “MATRAFT". The “STRIPRAFT" Foundation is 2 violation of NOC and Explosives License, thereby confirming the District Revenue Officer/ ‘Additional District Magistrate, Kanchipuram order dated 5.12.2014 denying NOC citing The Petroleum Rules 2002, Rule 124 (1), 124 (3), 130, 152 (2)(@) of the Petroleum Rules 2002, Rule 118(5)(i) of Explosives Rules 2008 stands good, upheld with the evidence recorded ‘on 29 to 31% December 2020. (2) The Petroleum Rules 2002, Rule 147 amendment of license documents seeked by the PESO u/s 147 (3) (v) a certificate of tank testing of the tanks (vi) a certificate of safety. It is evident from the DRO order dated 19.09.2011 that DRO office was intimated on this till then (i.e 22.12.2008 - 19.09.2011) ‘and secondly the appropriate amendments documents u/s 130 and 126 was not updated thus statutory document Explosives License was not amended after 22.12.2008 and till date, its pertinent to mention the License was notrenewed from 2013 which Is must for NOC Consideration. The renewal of license cannot be done as Rule 148 (2) wherein *....where there has been no contravention of the act or of the rules framed there under or of any conditions of the license so renewed”, (3) During the period of orders passed on 19.09.2011, 05.07.2012, 05.12.2014, 02.12.2016, the underground storage tanks was not re-laid and ‘no alteration was carried out from 2008 onwards proves the facts the prima facie violation is confirmed, (4) The petitioner claim on quality of diesel in 2008 due to water In it and such diesel was supplied to customer vehicles is substantiated by the Sales Register records and during the removal of underground storage tanks on 29", 30"and 31.12.2020 water was found to the quantity of 4000 litres in the 2 diesel tanks of 20000 litres capacity each and no water was found in the 15000 litre petrol tank this fact confirmed also gives “the benefit of doubt” favouring the petitioner that there is intrusion of external water into the tanks through some gaps in the joints of the tanks. (5) The Petroleum Rules 2002, Rule 9 mandates due precautions be taken at all times to prevent escape of petroleum products the absence of water in the 15000 litres petrol tank proves no leaks but the water in the 2 diesel 20k! tanks proves there Is some leak through which the water got logged into the tanks, (6) The Petroleum Rules 2002, Rule 12 mandates Special precautions against accidents every person storing petroleum and every person in charge shall at all times comply with provisions of this rules, the petitioner claim he refused to operate the retail outlet only as a precautionary measure after nearly 8000 Its of petrol & diese! loss such sensitive claim can't be set aside, it is also clear from the DRO order dated 19.09.2011 if tanks are re-laid T.Dinesh Is not Intended to request for NOC cancellation the refusal to relay the faultily laid tanks, the “relaying of tanks” was not carried out by IOCL. It is evident from the records the license is in favour of IOCL it is the responsibility of IOCL to relay the tanks It is specifically mentioned that “T.Dinesh/person storingpetroleum/in charge cannot violate the Petroleum Act and Rules and operate the retail outlet, as mandated u/s 12 (1), 12(2)(a)(b)(0). (7) Rule 125 of the Petroleum Rules 2002, mandates that the tanks installed shall be protected against corrosion. The water logging in 2008 into the diesel storage tanks and also in 2020, In my opinion is serious lapse in protecting the tanks having recorded In MoM and NCSC advise citing the tank tilt, no service to ensure protection is carried out. (8) The Oil Industry Safety Directorate (OISD) in its “Safety in Retail Outlets” have highlighted adopting safety in Layout and installation the approved lay out was violated in placing the underground storage tanks, the operating practices the dealer was within his rights to refuse towards usage of tanks to store petroleum products to carry Retall sales and maintenance of facilities the underground storage tanks used to store petroleum products was not re- laid after NCSC advise and maintain it as per Explosives License and NOC. (9) This petitioner have made multiple representations to this office to take ote of it. The Commissionerate of Revenue Administration and Disaster Management have sent letter dt. 21.10.2020 to The District Collector, Kanchipuram vide Lr. No. RA.5(2)/13654/2020 is not barred from any limitation after the direction of Honourable High Court in Crl.0.P. No. 26771 of 2019 the three underground storage tanks were removed on 29", 30" and 31% December 2020 and the retail outlet land disputes came to an end after the Lease Deed was terminated on 13.01.2021. This petition dated 31.01.2021 was filed by T.Dinesh based on the outcome of this 2 issues the prima facie default before us. This office letter reference R.No 7607/M2/2020 dated 24.12.2020 to RTO, Kanchipuram and report submitted by RTO Kanchipuram with R.No.41076/A4/2020 dated 06.01.2021 was also considered before deciding upon this proceedings, Considering the long disputes and various orders passed, it Is evident that the Underground storage tank foundation is the prima facie default, the removal of the underground storage tanks have concluded the following facts;2. (a) The two Underground storage diesel tanks of 20000 litre capacity each under the driveway was laid in violation of No Objection Certificate (NOC), Explosives License and token of approval Explosives License and was placed in “STRIPRAFT” instead of “MATRAFT”, The foundations was broken while removing and the one petrol tank of capacity 15000 litre, was laid as per NOC and Explosives License, but the clamps which hold the tanks to the concrete were loose from the "MATRAFT” foundation which could not be broken and was not removed. The finding during the tank removal confirms the DRO order dated 05.12.2014 that “in his opinion it will cause Imminent danger to the public’, due to violations of sections Rule 130 & Rule 126 of petroleum Rules, 2002. (b) The presence of water which found its ways into the 2 diesel tanks of capacity 20000 litres each Is prima facie evidence of intrusion, thus safety and quality violation is confirmed. The presence of water due to intrusion will have imminent effect on the fuelling of vehicles and its consumer and public safety, It Is Important to note there is no water in the 15000 litre petrol tank which establish the fact that the two diesel tanks are not leak proof and its worthiness to store petroleum products is under question, and the lack of precautionary Is evident from the findings. (©) In the Explosives License token, approved by PESO dated 22.12.2008 the listed documents were not submitted to DRO. It did not comply to the order dated 19.09.2011 and had confirms it as “not Intimated to this office”, it is mandatory as per Rule 130 to produce the “Certificate of safety” and as per Rule 126 to produce “Tank testing certificate” in the process which confirms noncompliance to Unload the petrol and diesel. (@) The Road users safety is under threat due to in sufficient frontage as per the MOP&NG and State Highways Department (for SH-118) as recorded in the RTI record on turning radius for vehicles already recorded by IOCL in its internal note. After the tanks were removedthe lease was terminated on 13.01.2021 confirms that the Retail outlet size doesn’t meet the norms. The learned DRO have inspected the Retall Outlet and aptly recorded "construction of approach road is higher than the main road” and have cancelled the NOC in the order dated 19.09.2011 and it is an admitted fact. () The Chief Controller of Explosives, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation the Explosives Licensing authority framed a policy decision dated 04.01.2012 not to renew the explosives license confirming “That a litigious procession Is not a legal possession”. It has been noticed by PESO and have highlighted on point 3 that the “while granting NOC, the collector is not concerned about the ‘ownership of the land”, this Retall Outlet land disputes Is evident from the DRO order dated 19.09.2011 and is copy marked to Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Chennal .A Letter dated 18.12.2017 of PESO, Visakapatinam to IOCL citing “business is going on illegally by submitting fake declaration” and mandated that “Without receiving current registered lease deed, (in English version) no license will be renewed", It is evident IOCL have misused this land to operate the Retail Outlet by illegal means. This appellant authority finds it mandatory to Intimate the role of this good office to all NOC granting authorities j.e the Police department, Revenue Department, Oll Marketing Companies and the Dealers, that in future, In all appeal proceedings hereafter the Dealer should be made as party and his/their statement should also be recorded. The above policy of PESO should be updated with all NOC Issuing authorities. ‘The offences committed by the Company M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited is serious nature, hence I, the Transport Commissioner/Appellate authority decide to report the same to The Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board, mandated under The Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006.-14 The Rule 160 mandatesthe Infringements to be reported, on the underground storage tank violation to the Chief Controller of Explosives, hence this order Is copy marked/reported to the NOC issuing authority, The District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram and Chief Controller of Explosives, Nagpur. ator cnt Secretary] ‘Transport Commissioner Cum Appellate Authority Chepauk, Chennai-S. To: [RPAD] 1. The District Revenue Officer, District Collector office, Kancheepuram-631501. 2. The Chief Controller of Explosives, CGO Complex, Sth A’ Block, Seminary His, Nagpur, Maharashtra-440006. COPY To:[RPAD] 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (Prohibition & Excise) Department, Secretariat, Fort st. George, Chennai-600009. hiru.T.Dinesh, Piot No: 2239, AF Block, 6" Street, 11 Main Road, Annanagar, Chennai 600040, 3. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 500, Anna salal, Teynampet, Chennai -600018. 4, The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, ‘A and D Wing,Block-18lind floor, Shastri Bhawan,26 Haddous road, Nungambakkam,Chennai-600006.