Kerala High Court
Ariyankavu Pooraghosha Committee, ... vs The State Of Kerala on 3 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 13428 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 ARIYANKAVU POORAGHOSHA COMMITTEE, KAVALAPARA,
AGED 57 YEARS
SHORNOOR- REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY
N. BALAN, S/O. AIYAPPAN, PURAKATTUKUNATHU,
KOONANTHARA, VANIYAMKULAM,
PALAKKAD-, PIN - 679523
2 N. BALAN, AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. AIYAPPAN, PURAKATTUKUNATHU,
KOONANTHARA, VANIYAMKULAM,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679523
BY ADVS.
R.RANJANIE
MEERA M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, PALLAKAD
PIN - 680001
3 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
CIVIL PALLAKAD, PIN - 680001
4 CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES
PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANIZATION
'A' BLOCK, CGO COMPLEX, 5 TH FLOOR SEMINAARY HILLS,
NAGPUR, MAHARASHTRA-, PIN - 440006
WP(C) No.13428 of 2024 2
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VANIYAMKULAM 1 VILLAGE,
OTTAPALAM BLOCK AND TALUK, VANIYAMKULAM,
PALAKKAD-, PIN - 679522
OTHER PRESENT:
GP - AJITH VISWANATHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.13428 of 2024 3
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P (C) No.13428 of 2024
.................................................................
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
Petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6 order
passed by the 3rd respondent whereby Ext.P1 application for issuance of
LE-6 licence for conduct of fireworks display on 04.04.2024 in connection
with the pooram celebration of Ariyankavu Temple was rejected.
2. A perusal of Ext.P6 order would reveal that Ext.P1 application has
been rejected for the following reasons:
(i) Though as per the revised directives under Rule 126 of the
Explosives Rules, 2008 of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry
(Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion), Government of India the
application for public display of fireworks has to be submitted before the
District Magistrate two months prior to the scheduled date of display, the
application has been submitted only on 04.03.2024 and due to the same
there was no sufficient time to conduct a risk assessment study and to
prepare a disaster management plan and to take necessary precautions in
the case of any disaster happening in connection with the public display of
fireworks.
(ii) There is no magazine provided for keeping safe custody of the
explosives for public display.
(iii) There is no proper risk assessment plan and on-site
emergency plan prepared by an approved agency, and
(iv) The content of the explosives could not be verified through the
chemical examiner attached to the Chemical Laboratory at Ernakulam.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the delay in
submitting the application occurred only for the reason that necessary
permission from the Advocate Receiver has to be obtained and necessary
request has been made before the Receiver in this regard on 06.03.2024
as per Ext.P3. Petitioners submit that they have prepared Ext.P5 sketch
wherein the storage space for storing the fireworks was also highlighted
among other things. The case of the petitioners is that without hearing them
and without calling for any report from the officers as mandated under the
Rules the 3rd respondent in a hasty manner rejected Ext.P1 application as
per Ext.P6 order. Petitioners further submit that the application cannot be
rejected solely for the reason that the same has not been submitted within
the time prescribed. It is also submitted that necessary storage facility has
also been provided near the premises where the public display of fireworks
is being conducted. Petitioners would further submit that the 3 rd respondent
ought to have required the 2 nd petitioner sufficiently early to produce a risk
assessment plan and on-site emergency plan if at all needed in the
peculiar nature of the property in which the digital fireworks will be
displayed.
4. I have heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader.
5. Admittedly the application was filed only on 04.03.2024 though the
public display of fireworks is scheduled to be held on 04.04.2024. The
specific reason stated in Ext.P6 is that due to the delay in submitting the
application, they could not conduct a risk assessment study and prepare a
disaster management plan to meet the situation of any disaster in
connection with the public display of fireworks and therefore they could not
make necessary arrangement for the safety of the people who will
assemble in the temple premises to watch the public display of fireworks.
The reason stated by the petitioners for the delay that necessary
permission had to be obtained from the Advocate Receiver cannot be a
reason for not submitting the application sufficiently early so that the
authorities could conduct a risk assessment study and finalise the disaster
management plan. Yet another objection raised is that no risk assessment
plan and on-site emergency plan has been submitted by the petitioners.
The contention of the petitioners is that if at all the 3rd respondent required
a risk assessment plan and on-site emergency plan, he should have asked
the 2nd petitioner to produce the same sufficiently early. The said contention
of the petitioners cannot be accepted going by the revised directives issued
by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Only on submission of risk
assessment plan and on-site emergency plan that the respondent
authorities could make necessary arrangement for a safe display of
fireworks and due to the fact that the petitioners have not submitted the risk
assessment plan and on-site emergency plan the respondents could not
take any steps in this regard.
Taking into consideration the fact that no application has been
submitted within the time limit prescribed and that no risk assessment plan
and on-site emergency plan has been submitted by the petitioners and
further that no magazine has been provided as per the directives of PESO
and also taking into consideration the fact that there is no sufficient time left
for the petitioners to submit a fresh risk assessment plan and on-site
emergency plan and for the 3rd respondent to formulate a disaster
management plan based on the same since the public display of fireworks
is scheduled to be held on 04.04.2024 and taking into consideration the
fact that safety of the public who will be assembled in the temple premises
for public display of fireworks is of prime importance, I am not inclined to
interfere with Ext.P6 order impugned in this writ petition.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13428/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
4.3.2024, SUBMITTED FOR GRANT OF LE-3
LICENCE FOR PUBLIC DISPLAY OF FIREWORKS
IN THE TEMPLE GROUND,
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE
LIE OF THE TEMPLE GROUND AND ADJACENT
PROPERTIES AND ROAD,
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
6.3.2024, SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF
THE 1 ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE RECEIVER
APPOINTED BY THE COURT
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
24.3.2024, SUBMITTED BY THE JOINT
SECRETARY OF THE 1 ST PETITIONER,
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE
LIE OF THE TEMPLE, TEMPLE GROUND,
ADJACENT PROPERTIES, ROAD AND STORAGE
AREA,
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
29.3.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT
