Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
SURENDRAN P.A. – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request for fireworks was refused. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner claimed documents submitted; respondent disagreed. (Para 2) |
| 3. court stressed the importance of document submission. (Para 3) |
| 4. court found petitioner's assertions untrue. (Para 4) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed; opportunity given for future submissions. (Para 5) |
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,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
