Kalimuthi Bhagavathy Temple Vela ... vs The State Of Kerala

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10759 Ker
Judgement Date : 12 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Kalimuthi Bhagavathy Temple Vela ... vs The State Of Kerala on 12 April, 2024

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
     FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 15325 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

          KALIMUTHI BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE VELA COMMITTEE
          REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KULAVANMUKKU,
          KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,, PIN - 678702

          BY ADVS.
          RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
          VIJINA K.
          ARUL MURALIDHARAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE STATE OF KERALA
          REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
          HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    2     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
          PALAKKAD, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

    3     THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PALAKKAD
          OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
          CIVIL STATION , PALAKKAD ., PIN - 678001

    4     THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
          PALAKKAD, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF.
          DPO ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

    5     THE SECRETARY
          KUZHALMANNAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
          OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
          KUZHALMANNANI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
          KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKHAD., PIN - 678702

    6     THE DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER PALALKKAD
          OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER,
          FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, BEHIND CIVIL STATION,
          PALALKKAD, PIN - 678001
 WP(C) No.15325 of 2024              2


     7      THE TAHSILDAR
            ALATHUR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR,
            ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678541

     8      THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES
            OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF
            EXPLOSIVES, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030

     9      THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
            KUZHALMANNAM POLICE STATION, KUZHALMANNAM,
            PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678702
            SR.GP DEEPA NARAYANAN

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.15325 of 2024                      3


                          VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
       --      -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
                      W.P.(C) No.15325 of 2024
       --      -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
                  Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024

                               JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 order issued by the 3rd respondent, whereby Exts.P1 and P2 applications submitted for issuance of LE - 6 licence for public display of fireworks scheduled to be conducted on 17.04.2024 in connection with a temple festival were rejected.

2. The reasons stated in Ext.P4 for rejecting the applications are that there was delay in submitting the application, no permanent magazine is provided as per the Explosives Rules, 2008 and no risk assessment plan and on site emergency plan were submitted and that the sample of the explosives was not sent for examination through the Regional Chemical Examiner's Laboratory, Ernakulam to find out the presence of any illegal ingredients.

3. The petitioner would contend that whatever defects that have been noted in the impugned order will be cured and in the place of a permanent magazine, a portable magazine to the satisfaction of the licence issuing authority, ie. 3rd respondent Additional District Magistrate, will be provided. As regard non-submission of the risk assessment plan and on site WP(C) No.15325 of 2024 4 emergency plan the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a proper risk assessment plan and on site emergency plan will be submitted without any delay.

In view of the specific assertions made by the petitioner that the defects noted in the impugned order will be cured and that he will provide a portable magazine to the satisfaction of the 3rd respondent Additional District Magistrate, the licence issuing authority, I am of the opinion that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the said respondent. The 3 rd respondent shall re-consider the matter on 15.04.2024 and take a decision in the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the result shall be intimated to the petitioner before 5'O clock on 15.04.2024 itself. The 3rd respondent, if required shall take a decision after calling for the meeting of any other authorities in person or through Video Conference. The learned Government Pleader shall communicate the order today itself to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner shall produce all the documents in support of his contentions for the perusal of the 3rd respondent, who upon perusal of the same shall take a decision afresh after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner/authorised representative of the petitioner shall appear before the 3rd respondent at 11.00 a.m. on 15.04.2024. The 3rd respondent while re-considering the matter shall ensure that the directives issued by the Ministry of Commerce referred to in the impugned order including the distance WP(C) No.15325 of 2024 5 criteria, providing of barricades at 100 metres around the display site and verification of the samples of fireworks are duly complied with. The risk assessment plan and on site emergency plan re-submitted by the petitioner shall be verified through the Disaster Management Team under the District Administration and shall be duly prepared by the District Administration before the fireworks display if the application is allowed on reconsideration. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case but only directed re-consideration of the application for LE-6 licence if all the defects noted in the impugned order are cured and taking into consideration the fact that the fireworks display is scheduled to be held on 17.04.2024. It is also made clear that safety of the public shall be of prime importance while reconsidering the matter as directed above. The 3rd respondent will be free to even reduce the quantity of fireworks to be used for the display if he choose to allow the application. Respondents shall see that all safety measures are implemented so as to avert any danger to the public if the application is allowed upon reconsideration.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE cks WP(C) No.15325 of 2024 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15325/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM AE-6 DATED 16-2-2024 ALONG WITH E-

                         CHALAN FOR REMITTANCE OF AMOUNT DATED
                         5-3-2024   MADE   BY    PETITIONER AND
                         SUBMITTED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2               A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM
                         AE-6 UNDER RULE 113 OF EXPLOSIVES
                         RULES, 2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
                         BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P3               A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23-3-
                         2024 ISSUED BY 7TH RESPONDENT TO 2ND
                         RESPONDENT

Exhibit P4               A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6-4-2024
                         IN FILE NO. DCPKD/2597/2024-D3 PASSED
                         BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P5               A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 114-2023
                         IN W.P.(C) NO. 12482/2023 PASSED BY
                         THIS HONOURABLE COURT