Review of building classification under licensing rules highlights distinction between hazardous and commercial uses, allowing for reconsideration of fireworks sales permit.

ORDER

The above review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment dated 20.03.2023 in W.P.(C) No.39002 of 2022.

2. W.P.(C) No.39002 of 2022 is filed challenging Ext.P6 order whereby licence was rejected by the local authority stating that since the request of the petitioner for grant of permit for sale of fireworks, the building in which the proposed business is intended to be conducted is a building classified as commercial, licence cannot be granted.

3. When the matter came up for consideration this Court after considering the rival contentions has opined that as per the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules , Group I occupancy comes under the hazardous activities and admittedly the storage and sale of fire crackers are hazardous activities which requires a building which satisfies the conditions of a Group I occupancy and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to make necessary application for change of occupancy and thereupon this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent Panchayat to consider and pass orders on the same as expeditiously as possible. It is seeking review of the said judgment that the present review petition has been filed.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner submits that the contention of the 1^st respondent Panchayat is that the building of the review petitioner falls under Group I category which relates to hazardous building used for storage, handling, manufacturing or processing of highly combustible or explosive materials, whereas the stand of the review petitioner is that as she intends to run a shop that sells fire works and crackers, occupancy under Group F relating to display and sale of merchandise is applicable to the petitioner. Learned senior counsel would contend that Group I occupancy relates to hazardous building which are used for storage, handling, manufacturing and processing of highly combustible or explosive materials and the review petitioner’s building will not come under that category. Group F category relates to mercantile or commercial building where merchandise are kept for display and sale either for wholesale or retail and therefore the building will come only under the category of buildings under Group F occupancy. Learned senior counsel would further, relying on the definition of fire works under Explosive Rules as well as UN classification of the explosives under the Explosives Rules and the division 1.4, contend that it is clear from the above that fireworks are classified as substances and articles that present “no significant hazard”. When the Explosives Act and Rules classify fireworks as articles that are not hazardous there can be no assumption that fireworks are “highly hazardous substances” as held in the judgment dated 20.03.2023. The rules relating to grant of LE5(f) licence states that plan of the shop showing the storage capacity, approach road, surrounding facilities specifically indicating compliance of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 86 is to be looked into. As per Rule 86(3) of the Explosives Rules relating to shop, safety distance is prescribed as 15 metres from the premises used for storage of explosives, flammable or hazardous materials and contend that the review petitioner’s shop satisfies all conditions and that is why petitioner has been granted licence from PESO. It is further contended that PESO being the authority under the Explosives Act to look into the issue of safety distance, nature of building, etc. for sale of fireworks and when PESO has granted licence in compliance with the requirement of shop as laid down in Rule 86(3) it is arbitrary on the part of the respondents to deny permission to the building to be used as mercantile/commercial for sale of fireworks