Procedural compliance concerning notifications in permit applications is crucial for valid administrative decisions.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2026 Petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P9 Order of the District Collector/Additional District Magistrate, which refused permission to the petitioners for display of fireworks in connection with the festival of 'Marattil Kottaram Bhagavathi Dewasom Temple'. Several reasons are referred to in Ext.P9. The application posing challenge against Ext.P9 is seriously opposed by the learned Senior Government Pleader, as also, by a person who proposed to file an impleading petition, who would claim that he is a nearby resident.

2. Ext.P9 is sought to be assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioners for the alleged violation of Rule 114 of the Explosives Rules , 2008, which mandates the

2^nd respondent/District Collector to notify the objections and to hear the applicant, in case the permission sought for is found liable to be rejected. The said procedural safeguard has not been complied with, is the essential grievance. Learned counsel would submit that, insofar as the dwelling houses which are available within the prohibited distance, the petitioners have obtained subsequently, the Non Objection Certificates from the respective owners. The Non Objection Certificates from the nearby hospital and school have also been obtained. Ext.P13 is a judgment in favour of the petitioners, wherein the distance criteria has already been considered, is the argument advanced.

3. These arguments are seriously assailed by the learned Senior Government Pleader by pointing out that the permission sought for by the self-same temple for display of fireworks was rejected by this Court in the last year, vide Ext.P11 judgment, as also, in previous years. In Ext.P11 judgment, the impossibility of erecting a barricade around 100 meter radius of the proposed site has been taken stock of. Further, the impossibility of conducting fireworks in compliance with the Rules was also taken stock of. Accidents which occurred during the years 1987, 2008 and 2016 were referred to. On such premise, the prayer sought for, for display of fireworks was refused. Learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that there is no change of circumstance this year to take a different view. Ext.P13 judgment has been attacked by pointing out that the same was rendered prior to the amendment of the Explosives Rules , 2024.

4. The person who seeks impleadment, though an impleadment petition has not been filed, was also heard for the sake of completion. Learned counsel would hand over a judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.6258 of 2024, wherein also, the impossibility to conduct display of fireworks, adhering to the Rules, has been espoused.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader, and also the learned counsel for the proposed impleading petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that Exts.P9 and P10 Orders cannot be sustained, essentially for two reasons. The application for display of fireworks was filed as early as on 23.12.2025. It goes without saying that an application for display of fireworks has to be considered and Orders passed with reasonable dispatch; and at any rate, an Order which has been delayed so as to frustrate the very purpose of the application cannot be countenanced. The 2^nd respondent/District Collector has sat over that application for a period of more than one month - close to two months - ultimately to reject the same on a day before the date on which the display is scheduled. This conduct has already been deprecated by this Court on several occasions. Secondly, this Court notice that the requirement in terms of Rule 114 of the Explosives Rules to hear the petitioners, after notifying the objecti