GOKULAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of Ext.P3 and also for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct public fireworks display in connection with the annual festival in Karimkutty Ayyappan Kavu, Thiruvillwamala, on 14.3.2020. The petitioner filed an application therefor, in his capacity as the President of the Thalappoli Committee of the said temple, on 24.1.2020. The said application was rejected as per Ext.P3 order dated 4.2.2020. The third respondent assigned the following reasons for rejecting the said application:-

(2.) When this matter came up for admission on 9.3.2020 this Court made an observation orally that in Ext.P2 application the items and quantities of fireworks were not specifically mentioned in the prescribed columns. Pursuant to such observation made by this Court, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application seeking issuance of licence for conducting public fireworks display in connection with the festival in the aforesaid temple. The said application dated 10.3.2020 is still pending.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made all arrangements for providing portable magazine for the safety storage of fireworks in case permission is granted for conducting fireworks display. On going through the reasons for rejection of Ext.P2 application as per Ext.P3, 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. A perusal of the provisions under Schedule IV of the Explosives Rules would reveal that LE-3 licence is required for the purpose of possessing fireworks materials for sale. For the purpose for which LE-6 licence was applied by the petitioner the relevant provision is specification 3(2) of Schedule VII of the Explosives Rules, 2008. The pleadings in the writ petition and Ext.P2 application would reveal that the petitioner in his capacity as President of the Thalappoli Committee of the aforesaid temple sought permission for public fireworks display in connection with the temple festival. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the action on the part of the 3rd respondent in insisting possession of a magazine with LE-3 licence issued by PESO by the applicant cannot be sustained. Ext.P3 would reveal that the other reason assigned for rejecting the application was that if at all permission is granted to store the fireworks materials in a temporary magazine the petitioner would not be in a position to construct a temporary magazine. We are at a loss to understand the reason or foundation for arriving at such a conclusion by the 3rd respondent. Ext.P3 would reveal that the order was passed on 04.2.2020 and obviously, the petitioner sought permission to conduct fireworks display on 14.3.2020. In such circumstances, the application could not have been rather, should not have been rejected assigning such reasons. That apart, on a perusal of Ext.P6 would reveal that the petitioner did not seek for permission for using any impermissible item for the fireworks display. He sought for display of fireworks only with Oalappadakkam, Flowers, Kadhinas, Chinese Crackers and Poothiri. Taking note of all such aspects the 3 rd respondent shall pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 expeditiously, at any rate, not later than 5 p.m. On 12.03.2020. To enable reconsideration of the application, in other words, to consider Ext.P6 application, Ext.P3 order is set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.