RAJAN P.K. Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of the Additional District Magistrate, which refused the petitioner's application for issuance of LE-6 licence for public display of fire works in connection with the festival of Sree Koottala Bhagavathy Temple at Keralassery, Palakkad. Four reasons are seen cited in Ext.P5 for refusal, which are as follows:

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, this Court notice that a permanent magazine is not contemplated for an LE-6 licence on the basis of an application preferred, as per AE-6. As a matter of fact, there is no serious storage of the explosives involved, since the explosives are brought to the place immediately before the display, and the same is displayed. The licence sought for usually is for a day and the instant case is specifically for a day. A similar situation has been dealt by a division bench of this Court in K.Sreenivasan v. District Collector (W.P.(C) No.5261 of 2020), wherein it was directed that, if the petitioner produces a portable magazine to the satisfaction of the authorities, the same would cater to the requirements of law, for which course the petitioner is amenable. Therefore, the first objection specified in Ext.P5 cannot be sustained.

(3.) The second objection is with respect to the Risk Assessment Plan/On-Site Emergency Plan. The learned counsel for the petitioner would invite that the attention of this Court to Ext.P3, which is named as a site plan, but contains all the necessary particulars, including the barricades and the access roads, in case an emergency evacuation is required. There is no specific finding in Ext.P5 that Ext.P3 plan is not sufficient. Now, coming to the Risk Assessment Plan, the learned counsel would submit that there are no agencies in Kerala, which are approved and competent to conduct such risk analysis study. In answer to the same, the learned Government Pleader would submit that there are a few agencies. Whatever that be, it remains a fact that there is scarcity of reputed agencies for conducting the study, wherefore, strict enforcement of the said requirement may cause practical hurdles. In such circumstances, the purpose will be served if the authorities concerned stipulates an alternate safeguard in this regard, so as to ensure the purpose of a Risk Assessment Plan. Such alternate safeguard, if any, made by the authorities will be complied with by the petitioner.