A petitioner must adhere to procedural requirements in seeking permissions; failure to provide necessary documents results in denial of relief.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P8, which refused permission to the petitioner for display of fireworks in connection with the festival of Sree Pandaloor Siva Bhagavathy Temple. The reasons stated in Ext.P8 is that the petitioner had not obtained necessary permission for establishing a explosive magazine; that the petitioner had not produced the public liability insurance, the risk assessment report, the on-site emergency plan, a copy of the licence for establishing magazine, the certificates to be issued to the fireworks display operator and the fireworks display assistant etc. The petitioner was directed to produce these records. However, the same has not been produced, is what is seen stated in Ext.P8. An additional reason stated is that there is no sufficient access to the temple for plying the fire engine, if necessity arise. Another reason stated is that the barricade for the security of the spectators is also not established.

2. When this matter was taken up for consideration on 29.01.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that all the records, which are made mention of in clause no.2 of page no.2 of Ext.P8 (running page no.36) have been submitted to the 3^rd respondent/ Additional District Magistrate. This Court directed the learned Senior Government Pleader to ascertain whether these records have been submitted or not. Learned Government Pleader, after due instructions, would submit that the records have not been submitted to the Additional District Magistrate, so far. Petitioner’s counsel would submit that the records have been produced in this Writ Petition.

3. This Court notice that, it is not for this Court to satisfy with respect to the availability of the records made mention of in clause no.2 mentioned in Ext.P8. It is before the competent authority that the petitioner ought to have produced these documents. According to the petitioner, the application for permission was filed as early as on 18.11.2025. The petitioner should have been aware of the documents, which are liable to accompany in application seeking permission for display of fireworks. The contents of Ext.P8 would indicate that despite direction, the documents have not been produced.

4. This Court also take stock of the fact that the petitioner made a specific assertion yesterday (29/1/2026) that these documents have been produced, which is found to be false. In the circumstances, no relief, as sought for, can be granted.

5. In case, the petitioner produces the documents, which are made mention of in clause 2 before the 3^rd respondent Additional District Magistrate by 11.00 am tomorrow (31/1/2026), it will be open for the said respondent to consider the same, and upon being satisfied of the same, to grant the permission.

This Writ Petition will stand dismissed.

Sd/-