Administrative decisions regarding public safety for fireworks displays must be substantiated and must honor previous precedents regarding compliance with safety regulations.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners for approval/grant of licence for public display of fireworks in connection with the festival of the temple.

2. WP(C) Nos.16473, 16489, 16547, 16560 and 16587/2024 pertain to the festival of Parakkottukavu Devi Temple, whereas WP(C) No.16735/2024 pertains to the festival of Moonunni Kavu Temple. The impugned order in all the writ petitions has been marked as Ext.P7. The impugned order in WP(C) Nos.16473, 16489, 16547, 16560 and 16587/2024 was passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Thrissur, whereas the impugned order in WP(C) No.16735/2024 was passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Palakkad. The public display of fire work is proposed to be conducted on various days from 5^th May 2024 to 13^th May 2024.

3. According to the petitioners, the fireworks are proposed to be conducted by licenced contractor who possesses a valid licence and they have complied with all conditions and submitted all the relevant documents along with the applications and therefore, the same ought to have been allowed. It is alleged that Ext.P7 is illegal, arbitrary and passed mechanically without considering the facts and circumstances of each case.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader.

5. The Additional District Magistrate rejected the applications mainly on three grounds. (i) The petitioners did not provide the fireworks magazines as required under the Explosives Rules. (ii) The petitioners did not produce risk assessment plan and onsite emergency plan approved by the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO). (iii) The District Police Chief has recommended not to grant permission considering the safety of the public.

6. So far as the first ground is concerned, the case of the petitioners is that they do not intend to store the explosives at the site and rather the same will be brought to the site just before the time of display and then the display will be carried out. In such cases, there is no requirement for a permanent magazine to be constructed by them. They have undertaken that they are ready and willing to set up a portable magazine with all necessary safety measures for the safe storage of the fireworks. When the issue of permission of fireworks display came up for consideration in respect of the very same temple as well as other temples, this Court vide Exts.P8 to P11, P14 and P15 granted permission with a direction to provide a portable magazine to the satisfaction of the authorities. So far as the second ground is concerned, according to the petitioners, as per the conditions in LE-6 licence, there is no requirement that risk assessment plan should be one approved by the PESO. On the other hand, what is required is the risk assessment plan prepared properly. Exts.P4 and P5 would show that petitioners along with the applications have submitted risk assessment plan and onsite emergency plan. This Court as per Ext.P8 judgment has granted permission based on risk assessment plan prepared properly. So far as the third ground is concerned, it is up to the District Police Chief to take necessary precautionary measures to ensure the safety of the public at large. Thus, it appears that the reasons stated for rejection are not valid.

7. Ext.P2 would show that fireworks have been entrusted to one who owns a valid licence to conduct the same. According to the petitioners, the fireworks display are proposed to be held in an open area behind the temple which is a padam with no nearby houses or habitation. For the previous years also, perm