JAYAKRISHNAN P Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the President of Kathir-Kummatti-Kali Vela Committee of Vadavannur, filed this writ petition on being aggrieved by the rejection of Ext.P1application for public fire works display on 04.03.2020, 05.03.2020 and 06.03.2020 in connection with the annual festival of Sree Mannath Bhagavathy Temple. The said application was rejected as per Ext.P2 order on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the license issued by the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO). The other reasons assigned for rejection of the application were non-availability of magazines in the manner prescribed under the Explosives Rules 2008 and also non- production of the Risk Assessment Plan approved by the PESO. Subsequent to the rejection of the application, the petitioner has filed Ext.P9 application dated 26.2.2020 before the second respondent. In this context, it is to be noted that in Ext.P1, among other things, the petitioner has also sought for permission to conduct fireworks display with Amittu, Kambam etc. It is to be noted that the Additional District Magistrate is not competent to grant permission for conducting fireworks display using Amittu.

(2.) In Ext.P9, the petitioner seeks for permission to conduct fireworks display only using limited items, the quantity of which have been specifically mentioned therein. As noticed hereinbefore, as per Ext.P1, fireworks display is proposed to be conducted in the aforesaid temple in connection with the annual festival on 04.03.2020, 05.03.2020 and 06.03.2020. However, in the writ petition, it is stated that fireworks display is proposed to be conducted only on 05.03.2020 and 06.03.2020. Taking into account the fact that Ext.P9 application is pending and as per the same, the petitioner has not sought for fireworks display using any impermissible items and the quantity of items proposed to be used cannot be said to be very high, we are of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9.

(3.) As regards the main reason assigned for rejecting Ext.P1 application, viz., non-possession of LE-1 license by the person who manufactured the fireworks, it is to be noted that the petitioner has produced Ext.P3 license issued to one Swaminathan M.N. Ext.P3 is issued in Form LE-1. True that, it is issued by the Additional District Magistrate. In that context, it is relevant to note Article (1) (a) of Schedule IV of the Explosives Rules. The said Article would reveal that District Magistrate is the authority to issue licence to manufacture fireworks or gunpowder or both not exceeding 15 Kgs at any one time. Ext.P3 would reveal that permission was granted to Sri.Swaminathan M.N. for manufacture of fireworks or gunpowder or both not exceeding 15 Kg at any one time. Ext.P9 would reveal that on 05.03.2020 as also on 06.03.2020, the petitioner is proposing to conduct fireworks display using 8.750 Kg and 9.750 Kg of gun powder. In such circumstances, the aforesaid objection that LE-1 license was not one issued by PESO ought not to have been assigned as a reason for rejection of Ext.P1 application. Needless to say that the said reason cannot therefore be a reason for rejecting Ext.P9 application.