The court has the authority to direct the competent authority to issue necessary clearance for fire works display, subject to appropriate conditions to safeguard the interest of all concerned.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

1. The alleged callous inaction on the part of the competent authority, who has been arrayed as the respondents, in considering Ext.P4 application preferred by the petitioner Upadesaka Samithy in granting sanction for display of fire works in connection with the Arattupuzha Pooram scheduled on 2nd, 7th and 8th of April, 2017 forms the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 24.03.2017, instruction was sought to be obtained and the case was listed yesterday. The case was adjourned further to this date, so as to facilitate procuring of relevant materials regarding the state of affairs as on date.

3. Heard Sri. K. Ramakumar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri. T.K. Ananthakrishnan, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and also Sri. K.P. Sudheer, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Cochin Devaswom Board.

4. The sum and substance of the case projected by the petitioner is that the festival Arattupuzha Pooram is being conducted every year, including the fire works display as part of it, to please the deity, in accordance with all the relevant rules, norms and regulations, without giving any room for complaint/objections from any corner. It is pointed out that, the very same Samithy is actively taking part of the temple festival for the past several decades and no untoward incident or any adverse circumstance has occurred in any of the previous years in connection with the fire works display. All arrangements have been made in conformity with the statutory requirements and in tune with the directions issued by the competent authorities. It is also pointed out that, the fire works display is proposed to be conducted in a vast extent of 1.10 Acres of Padasekharam, which actually belongs to the Local Authority and there is no building or dwelling place anywhere near the locality.

5. Pursuant to Exhibit-P4 application preferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent, the matter was caused to be enquired by the Tahasildar. After conducting a site inspection, the village officer has prepared a detailed mahazar, describing the lie and location of the property, the available infrastructure and such other relevant aspects and a report bearing No. 38/17 dated 06.03.2017 (Ext.P1) has been submitted before the Tahasildar. As per the said report, it is stated that the festival is being conducted with the fire works display as part of the rituals and no instance of any casualty has been reported so far, because of the prudent precautionary steps taken in this regard. It is stated that the fire works display is sought to be conducted in the property having a vast extent, belonging to the Local Authority. The 'fire works' are intended to be stored in a temporary shed constructed in a different property comprised in re-survey No. 372/3 of the very same village and that necessary sanction has been obtained from the owner of the said property. The Police as well as the Fire & Rescue Department have been alerted and a 'supervising committee' has been constituted consisting of 36 members to conduct the festival in the most desired manner, without compromising any of the legal requirements. It is, accordingly reported by the Village Officer, that sanction could be granted for the fire works display for the current year as well.

6. On receiving the report dated 6.3.2017 of the Village Officer, some clarification was sought for by the Tahasildar, pursuant to which, it was made clear by the Village Officer as per the communication dated 21.3.2017, also forwarding a copy of the certificate issued by the Local Authority, as to the ownership of the land in question. Despite the steps taken by the petitioner and satisfying the requirement in all respects, the matter is still pending in the cold storage and hence Ext.P5 reminder was sent to the 1st respondent/District Collector, as evident from the