IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Sureshkumar S/o Sukumaran Nair – Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Collectorate Kenathuparambu – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 11881, 12194, 12318, 12543 of 2026
Decided On : 30-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. sample testing mandated; petitions allowed subject to verification. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT :
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
1. These Writ Petitions challenge Orders of a similar nature, which rejected the respective petitioners’ applications for permission for display of fireworks in connection with the respective events, which are made mention of in these Writ Petitions.
2. The reasons stated in the rejection Order are, moreover, similar, to the following effects:-
The first is that the petitioners can only use authorised crackers as approved by P.E.S.O. The second is that no risk assessment and onsite emergency plan issued by an agency approved by P.E.S.O has been produced. The third is that the petitioners have not produced the details of the fire crackers, which are intended to be used. The fourth is with respect to the scarcity of time for sampling. In W.P.(C).Nos.12543/2026 and 12318/2026, an additional objection is raised with respect to the absence of the permanent magazine.
3. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective petitioners and learned Government Pleader, this Court notice that the above objections are in the teeth of the several judgments rendered by this Court in various Writ Petitions, especially, those produced at Exts.P10 to P13. The impugned Orders, issued by the same authority, therefore, cannot survive the test of law. The Orders are therefore set aside. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent/District Collector to grant permission to the respective petitioners for display of fireworks on the days scheduled, 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 A.D.M or other competent officials to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
4. As regards the inspection of the sample, the petitioners, in all these cases will stand directed to produce the same before the 1st respondent/ District Collector by 05.00 p.m today (30/3/2026). The District Collector will stand directed to receive the samples, and do the needful for testing/identification, so as to ascertain whether there is any objectionable material in the crackers. The above exercise shall be completed on or before 05.00 p.m on 1/4/2026. The license to be granted as per the directions of this Court will be subject to the result of testing/verification.
5. Learned Government Pleader will inform the gist of the judgment to the 1st respondent forthwith.
These Writ Petitions will stand allowed, as indicated above.
Prior judgments bind authorities; standard objections to fireworks permissions for festivals unsustainable, allowing conditional approvals.
Refusals for fireworks display permissions unsustainable if prior judgments addressed grounds; grant subject to safety conditions.
The court emphasized the need for compliance with regulatory requirements for public safety when allowing fireworks displays.
The Writ Petition was permitted under specific conditions following the precedent set in a related case concerning fireworks regulations.
Temporary fireworks displays do not require permanent magazines; valid alternatives exist for safety compliance.
Court grants conditional fireworks display permission overriding rejection despite procedural lapses, prioritising precedents and safety compliance.
The court determines the validity of an order concerning fireworks display licenses, emphasizing compliance with safety regulations.
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.
State authorities cannot arbitrarily refuse fireworks permits for temple festivities when established judicial precedents exist, provided that the applicant ensures compliance with safety protocols, ....
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.