SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 10508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
GIRI K.V. – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 5749 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN, SMT.KEERTHANA SARIGA T.S.
For the Respondents: SMT.R.ASALATHA VARMA

Court validates portable magazines for fireworks and sets aside procedural objections limiting display permissions.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the refusal of permission for a fireworks display under Ext.P8, where the court highlights prior rulings validating portable magazines and recognizes the unavailability of regional approved agencies for risk assessments, as well as misinterpretations of access and safety distances. The court emphasizes these objections cannot impede permission for the display, ultimately setting aside Ext.P8 and directing the A.D.M. to grant permission under suitable safety conditions, specifying limits on explosives.

Result: This Writ Petition will stand allowed as indicated above.

Table of Content
1. refusal of fireworks display permission outlined. (Para 1)
2. court addresses objections regarding safety and access. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. court permits display under specified safety conditions. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

Under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext.P8 Order, which refused a permission sought for by the petitioner for display of fireworks in connection with the festival of ‘Kumbachowwa Mahotsavam’ in the ‘Chathamkulangara Bhagavathy Temple’. The first reason stated in Ext.P8 is with respect to the absence of a permanent magazine, a condition which has been dispensed with by this Court in several judgments, holding that a portable magazine would suffice.

2. The second objection is with respect to the absence of a risk assessment report and onsite emergency plan by the approved agency. This objection, again, has been repelled by this Court, taking stock of the fact that the approved agency is not available in Kerala and the nearest being the one at Nagpur.

3. Based on the third objection that there is little access to the place where the display is scheduled for vehicles to commute, this Court directed to the Village Officer concerned to ascertain and to submit when the matter is taken up in the afternoon session. After such exercise, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that there are as many as four access to the premises where the display is scheduled and the nearest one is at a distance of 150 meters, which road is having a width of four meters. Therefore, this objection also cannot stand in the way of permission sought for by the petitioner.

4. The last one is with respect to the non-availability of a distance of 100 meters between place of display and the place where barricades are to be established for the spectators to stand and watch the display. This cannot be correct going by the distance which is depicted in Ext.P5 sketch, whereby 150 meters is shown as a distance between the barricade and the proposed place of display.

5. In the circumstances, Ext.P8 will stand set aside and there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent/A.D.M. to grant permission to the petitioner, subject to the appropriate conditions which the 3rd respondent being fit and proper, so as to ensure safety. It is clarified that the quantity of explosives, which can be used for the purpose of display, shall not be more than 15 Kgs.

This Writ Petition will stand allowed as indicated above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top