V.GIRIJAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Denial of the request for fireworks display in Panamanna Sree Malolma Bhagavathi Temple constrained the petitioner, who is the President of the festival committee of the said temple, to file this writ petition. Ext.P1 is the application submitted therefor. It is dated 21.12.2019. The same was rejected as per Ext.P7 order dated 11.2.2020. A perusal of Ext.P7 order would reveal that the application was rejected assigning three grounds:-

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Learned Government Pleader and also the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the 4th respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a bare perusal of Ext.P3 itself would reveal that the person who was entrusted to conduct the display of fireworks is possessing the requisite licence therefor, from PESO. It is factually incorrect to say that the person who is entrusted to conduct fireworks display is not the person who possesses licence for fireworks display from PESO, it is contended. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that Ext.P7 itself would reveal that the petitioner had sought for permission to use mobile magazine for the purpose of safety storage of the fireworks materials. Obviously, that fact was not taken into consideration while passing Ext.P7. A perusal of Ext.P7 would reveal that without considering whether such arrangement is sufficient the second respondent entered into a finding that magazine as prescribed by the PESO is not available. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is prepared to produce a Risk Assessment Plan.