K.BALAKRISHNAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter involved in the captioned writ petitions is one and the same. The writ petitions are filed on being aggrieved by the denial of license for conducting public display of fireworks in connection with the festival at Sree Rudhiramahakalikavu (Uthralikavu) Temple. W.P.(C).No.4445 of 2020 is filed by Kumaranellur Desam Committee, W.P.(C).No.4459 of 2020 is filed by Wadakanchery Desam Pooram Committee and W.P.(C).No.4478 of 2020 is filed by Enkakkad Desam Pooram Committee. The aforesaid committees filed applications for LE-6 license for conducting fireworks in connection with the festival at Rudhiramahakalikavu (Uthralikavu) Temple. The said applications, which are produced as Ext.P1 in each of the writ petitions, would reveal that they sought for permission to conduct fireworks display on four days, viz., on 18.2.2020, 23.2.2020, 25.2.2020 and 26.2.2020. At this juncture, it is to be noted that, when these matters are taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that now the said committees except the Enkakkad Desam Pooram Committee have taken up a decision to confine the fireworks display only to one day. Accordingly, it is submitted that in respect of Kumaranellur Pooram Committee, they propose to conduct fireworks display on 25.2.2020 and Enkakkad Desam Pooram Committee proposes to conduct fireworks display on 18.2.2020 and 23.2.2020 and Wadakanchery Desam Pooram Committee is proposing to conduct fireworks display only on 26.2.2020. Applications for license were dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate, Thrissur as per orders dated 3.2.2020. Aggrieved by the orders dated 3.2.2020, the aforesaid committees took up the matter in appeal before the District Collector, Thrissur. The respective order passed by the District Collector rejecting the appeals preferred by each of the Committees, is produced in the writ petitions as Ext.P3. It is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate which was confirmed by the District Collector that the captioned writ petitions have been preferred.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel for CDB, the learned standing counsel for Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) and the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned orders in the above writ petitions would reveal that the sole reason for rejecting the applications is the absence of magazines as prescribed in the Explosives Rules. When these matters are taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners may be permitted to use portable magazines for the purpose of storage of fireworks for display on the aforementioned days. We are of the the considered view that it is essentially a matter to be considered by the concerned authority. Whether it is safe to use portable magazine and if possible, what should be the quantity of fireworks, are all matters for the authority concerned to decide. Ext.P1 applications would reveal that the petitioners are proposing to conduct fireworks using Olavedi and 2000 Kgs of 'Flowers'. When we put a question as to what exactly is the meaning of the expression 'Flowers' with reference to fireworks, it is submitted that it is 'Chinese Crackers'. On carefully scanning the impugned orders, it is evident that with respect to the conduct of fireworks using the aforesaid items, no objection was raised by the authorities and as noticed hereinbefore, the only reason for rejection of applications is the absence of magazines prescribed in the Explosives Rules. Taking into consideration the fact that permission for fireworks display is sought for four days viz., on 18.2.2020, 23.2.2020, 25.2.2020 and 26.2.2020 in the aforesaid manner, we are of the view that it is for the District Collector to consider whether fireworks display to the limited extent using portable magazines can be permitted.