IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. Jayachandran, J.
Suresh Babu V.K. – Petitioner
Versus
District Collector, Palakkad – Respondent
W.P.(C).Nos.10373, 10621, 10626, 10652 & 11080 of 2026
Decided On : 19-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of grounds for fireworks permission. (Para 1) |
| 2. condition for the granting of permissions. (Para 2) |
| 3. final decision to allow the fireworks displays. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT :
C. Jayachandran, J.
All these Writ Petitions challenge the rejection Order of the Additional District Magistrate(A.D.M.) or the District Collector, Palakkad, as the case may be, whereby the permission sought for by the respective petitioners for display of fireworks in connection with the festival of the various temples referred to in these Writ Petitions, have been rejected. In all the impugned Orders, common reasons have been stated for rejection. The first is the absence of a magazine, a ground which has been discounted by this Court in a catena of judgments, holding that a permanent magazine is not required for a temporary event like the festival of a temple, and that a portable magazine would suffice. The said ground cannot therefore hold good. The second ground is the absence of a P.E.S.O approved risk assessment plan and on- site emergency plan. This ground also has been rejected by this Court on several occasions noticing that an agency approved by P.E.S.O is not available in Kerala, the nearest one available being at Nagpur. There is no case that the respective petitioners have not produced any on-site emergency plan and risk assessment plan. The solitary objection is that it has not been issued by an agency approved by P.E.S.O. The third reason stated is that the petitioners have not given the details of the fireworks to be used. In answer to the same, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that only those fireworks covered and permitted by the LE1 license can be used by the petitioners. Rule 107(8) of the Explosive Rules would safeguard that aspect. The petitioners have no intention to use any cracker, other than those approved under the LE1 license.
2. In the light of the above discussion, all the respective rejection Orders are liable to be set aside. It is so done. There will be a direction to the respective A.D.Ms/District Collectors, as the case may be, to grant permission to the respective petitioners subject to the following conditions:
(i) The respective petitioners shall produce portable magazine/magazines to the satisfaction of the authorities for the storage of the fire works.
(ii) The petitioners shall satisfy all other requisite conditions for fireworks display under LE-6 license to the satisfaction of the authorities.
(iii) Before commencement of the fireworks display, barricades shall be put up at a distance of 100 metres of the display point on all sides and no one except the persons who are performing fireworks display shall be permitted into the prohibited area of 100 metres.
(iv) The quantity of the fireworks shall be limited to 15 kilograms.
(v) The police department and other statutory authorities shall supervise the entire fireworks display and issue necessary directions, if necessary.
(vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions, it will be open to the ADM or other competent officials to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
3. As regards the inspection of the sample crackers, the petitioners, in all cases except in W.P.(C).No.10621/2026, will produce the same before the 3rd respondent/A.D.M. today itself by 05.00 p.m. The A.D.M./District Collector will stand directed to receive the samples, and do the needful for testing/identification of the same, to ascertain whether there is any objectionable material in the crackers. In these cases, the above exercise shall be completed by 05.00 p.m. tomorrow. As regards the inspection of the sample crackers in W.P.(C).No.10621 of 2026, the same will be produced before the 3rd respondent/A.D.M. on 23.03.2026 by 10.00 a.m. and the same shall be completed by 05.00 p.m. on 24.03.2026. The license to be granted as per the directions of this Court will be subject to the result of testing/verification.
The learned Government Pleader will inform the gist
Temporary fireworks displays do not require permanent magazines; valid alternatives exist for safety compliance.
Administrative decisions regarding public safety for fireworks displays must be substantiated and must honor previous precedents regarding compliance with safety regulations.
Prior judgments bind authorities; standard objections to fireworks permissions for festivals unsustainable, allowing conditional approvals.
Court emphasizes that a permanent magazine is not required for temporary fireworks events. Risk assessment agencies are not locally available.
Refusals for fireworks display permissions unsustainable if prior judgments addressed grounds; grant subject to safety conditions.
The court held that rejection of fireworks display licenses was invalid as petitioners complied with all requirements and similar past approvals existed.
The court emphasized the need for compliance with regulatory requirements for public safety when allowing fireworks displays.
Temporary magazines suffice for fireworks in temporary events; prior refusals set aside with conditions.
The court ruled that temporary safety measures for fireworks displays are sufficient, and refusals to grant permission must be substantiated with valid reasons.
Permissions for temporary fireworks displays cannot be withheld based on strict regulations if adequate measures can be established.
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.