IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.M. MANOJ, J.
C. Haridas S/o C.P. Chathukutty - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 16245 of 2025
Decided On : 22-04-2025
(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Fireworks Display - The petitioner sought to quash an order rejecting permission for a fireworks display during a temple festival, asserting it as a long-standing custom. The court noted the absence of objections from local authorities and the safety measures proposed by the petitioner. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Legal Precedents - Previous cases where permission was granted for similar displays were cited, establishing a pattern of judicial support for such customs. (Paras 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, representing a temple festival committee, applied for permission to conduct a fireworks display integral to the festival, which has been practiced for over 100 years. The application was initially rejected despite local consent and safety measures.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the fireworks display could be permitted with specific conditions, emphasizing the importance of the tradition and the safety measures in place.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the rejection of the fireworks display application and the consideration of public safety.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the longstanding tradition of fireworks display, coupled with adequate safety measures and local consent, warranted the granting of permission, thus setting aside the previous order.
Result: Writ petition disposed of, permitting the fireworks display under specified conditions.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner, who is the President of Vela / Festival Committee of Chittilamchery Sree Cherunettury Bhagavathy Temple, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P11 and to compel the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct fireworks display as requested by him in Ext.P4 application in connection with the festival in the Temple falling on 28.04.2025 and 29.04.2025.
2. The petitioner states that festival of this year commenced on 14.04.2025 and concludes on 29.04.2025. Display of fireworks in the evening of last day and the next morning of the festival, is an important custom in connection with the temple festival. The fireworks is practiced for more than 100 years.
3. More than 500 metres is maintained from the proposed place of fireworks display and place where public gathers for watching the display. Strong barricades will be constructed to keep the devotees at a safe distance of 500 metres. Nearby owners of paddy land and residents have given their consent for using their property, for fireworks display.
4. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application dated 05.02.2025 before the 2nd respondent seeking permission to conduct fireworks display on 28th and 29th of April, 2025. The 3rd respondent called for reports from Tahsildar, District Police Chief and local authority. The local authority has informed that it has no objection in the conduct of fireworks display. The 3rd respondent, however, passed Ext.P11 order dated 10.04.2025 rejecting Ext.P4 application.
5. The petitioner states that Ext.P11 order is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. The 3rd respondent has not considered the fact that fireworks display is an integral part of the temple festival and temple custom. The petitioner should therefore be permitted to carry out fireworks display.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.
7. From the pleadings in the writ petition, I find that the fireworks display will be in a ground, 500 metres away from the area occupied by devotees. The nearby land owners and residents have given their consent which is evident from Exts.P1 to P3. The petitioner has entered into an agreement with a licenced fireworks manufacturer.
8. The petitioner has produced site plan which shows risk assessment. The petitioner has taken public liability from National Insurance Company Limited. The petitioner also has submitted an undertaking before the 3rd respondent ensuring safety of the premises by erecting barricades.
9. In the year 2016, when permission was declined for fireworks display, the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No.15857/2016. This Court directed the respondents to grant permission. For the year 2019 also, this Court granted an interim order dated 11.04.2019 in W.P. (C) No.11060/2019 permitting the Committee to conduct fireworks display for the festival. In the year 2022, in W.P. (C) No.14442/2022, this Court directed the 3rd respondent to reconsider the application, pursuant to which permission was granted by the 3rd respondent. In the year 2023 also, this Court directed the respondents to reconsider the application.
10. Taking into consideration all the above facts, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to conduct display of fireworks, limiting the quantity to a maximum of 15 Kg. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not use prohibited fireworks. The Police Department as well as the Additional District Magistrate shall supervise the fireworks display. All other conditions in the Explosives Act and Rules shall also be followed. Ext.P11 is set aside.
11. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Longstanding customs, such as fireworks displays during temple festivals, can be upheld if accompanied by adequate safety measures and local consent.
Permission for fireworks display cannot be denied based solely on police apprehension when all procedural requirements are met.
Administrative decisions regarding public safety for fireworks displays must be substantiated and must honor previous precedents regarding compliance with safety regulations.
The court held that rejection of fireworks display licenses was invalid as petitioners complied with all requirements and similar past approvals existed.
Court validates portable magazines for fireworks and sets aside procedural objections limiting display permissions.
Equal treatment under law for similar cases concerning issuance of fireworks display permits.
Refusals for fireworks display permissions unsustainable if prior judgments addressed grounds; grant subject to safety conditions.
Procedural compliance concerning notifications in permit applications is crucial for valid administrative decisions.
Court emphasizes that a permanent magazine is not required for temporary fireworks events. Risk assessment agencies are not locally available.
The fundamental rights to practice religion, the exemption granted to religious assemblies, and the need for regulatory measures to ensure public safety during religious festivals were central to the....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.