M.M.ANOOP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Denial of permission to conduct fireworks display in connection with the festival in Peringottukara Sree Somasekhara Temple in Thrissur District constrained the petitioner to file this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Senior Government Pleader.

(3.) On going through Ext.P1 application we find that there is absolute absence of any mention regarding the items and quantity of fireworks to be used for conducting fireworks display. Based on the observation orally made by us in relation to the same the petitioner filed Ext.P8 application, in which the petitioner made it clear that fireworks display is intended to be conducted only by using Olapadakkam and Chinese Flower (approved by PESO). True that, the quantity of the aforementioned materials are not specifically mentioned in Ext.P8. A scanning of Ext.P6 order would reveal that twin reasons have been assigned for rejecting the application. On going through the reasons for rejection of Ext.P1 application as per Ext.P6, we find that according to the 3rd respondent an applicant for LE-6 licence must have magazine with LE-3 licence issued by PESO to earn eligibility to apply for LE-6 licence. This, according to us, is not in terms of the relevant provisions under the Explosives Act , 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008. There is no case for the respondents that the manufacturer who was approached by the petitioner got no LE-1 licence. So also, there is no case for them that the person who was entrusted with the conduct of fireworks display does not have LE-3 licence.