ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Denial of permission to conduct fire works display in connection with the festival in Puthiyakavu Bhavathy Temple compelled the petitioner, who is the President of the said Devaswom, to file this writ petition. Earlier, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (C)No.4840 of 2020. The petitioner raised the grievance of non- consideration of Ext.P4 application dated 26.12.2019, referred as such in the said writ petition, therein. As per Ext.P16 judgment dated 19.2.2020 the said writ petition was disposed of, taking note of the pendency of Ext.P4 application therein, with a direction to the 2 nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 application. It is the consideration of the said application, in the light of Ext.P16 judgment, that culminated in the present impugned order viz., Ext.P19. As per Ext.P19, the permission sought for was rejected. It is in the said circumstances that the captioned writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) The core contention of the petitioner is that a bare perusal of Ext.P19 would reveal total non-application of mind by the 2 nd respondent. A perusal of Ext.P14 and P19 would reveal that Ext.P19 is nothing but a replica of Ext.P14, it is submitted. All the reasons assigned in Ext.P14 found placed in Ext.P19, as well. The learned counsel would further submit that though originally a prayer for conducting fire works using 'gundu', 'amitttu' and 'kuzhiminnal' were there, in the application submitted subsequent to Ext.P16 judgment such a request was not made. That apart, though willingness to provide portable magazine was made what is stated in Ext.P19 is that there is absolute absence of magazine. So also, in Ext.P14 it is stated that consent letter of the nearby residents are not produced. However, along with Ext.P17 application consent letters of the nearby residents of the temple were produced. All the reasons given in Ext.P19 for rejection of application would thus reveal that those relevant aspects were not at all taken into consideration or the 2 nd respondent had failed to take note of such situation, it is submitted. It is in the said circumstances that the contention Ext.P19 is nothing but a replica of total non-application of mind is raised. A perusal of Ext.P16 judgment would reveal that we have taken note of the contentions made by the learned counsel while W.P.(C)No.4840 of 2020 was taken up for consideration. Essentially, one of the grievances raised therein was that the authority though used to give permission to use portable magazine for safety storage of fire works materials, did not extend permission to use portable magazine to the petitioner. It is also stated therein that though at the time of consideration of the earlier application consent letters from the nearby residents were not available they were obtained and produced before the authority along with Ext.P17 application. The fact that the petitioner did obtain such consent letters were taken note of in Ext.P16 judgment.