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) 15421

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
V.K. SASIKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SECRETARY, DEP OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION, DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 8479 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN, SMT.KEERTHANA SARIGA T.S.
For the Respondents: SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN, SMT.ANUROOPA JAYADEVAN

Permission for fireworks display cannot be denied based solely on police apprehension when all procedural requirements are met.

Headnote:The applicability of the relevant statutory rules regarding the permission for fireworks display was challenged in this case, where the court found the refusal based on police apprehension unsupported by legal grounds. The petitioner satisfied all regulatory requirements, leading to the conclusion that mere apprehensions cannot justify a denial. Therefore, the court granted permission contingent on specific conditions, recognizing the legislative standards for fireworks displays.

Table of Content
1. challenge to fireworks display permission. (Para 1)
2. reports in favor of the petitioner. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court's assessment of police apprehensions. (Para 4 , 5)
4. outcome granting permission with conditions. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

Under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext. P8 Order, which refused the petitioner's application seeking permission to conduct display of fireworks, in connection with the festival of Sri Hanumankavu Devi Temple, Edappal. The solitary reason stated in Ext.P8 is the apprehension by the Police about the possibility of any untoward incident, based on certain incidents which occurred in the past, at other places.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would specifically point out that, the reports of the Fire Officer, as well as, the Tahsildar are in favour of the petitioner. The distance criteria, as stipulated by the Rules, is also complied with. In such circumstances, a mere apprehension by the Police cannot result in an Order like Ext.P8, refusing the permission sought for, is the argument advanced.

3. The learned Government Pleader would confirm that, the distance criteria as per the concerned Rules have been satisfied and the reports of the Tahsildar and the Fire Officer are in favour of the petitioner.

4. The learned Central Government Counsel would make submissions on behalf of respondents 4 and 5.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective parties, this Court feels that the reason stated in Ext.P8 cannot be sustained. A mere apprehension - as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner - cannot afford legal ground for refusing Ext.P1 application, seeking permission for display of fireworks. It is relevant to note that the petitioner has satisfied all other conditions, especially, the distance rule, etc.

6. In such circumstance, Ext.P8 cannot be sustained and the same will stand set aside. Due to paucity of time, the matter cannot be relegated back to the competent authority. The permission sought for, vide Ext.P1, will stand granted, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall produce portable magazine/magazines to the satisfaction of the authorities for the storage of the fire works.

(ii) The petitioner shall satisfy all other requisite conditions for fireworks display under LE-6 licence to the satisfaction of the authorities.

(iii) Before commencement of the fireworks display, barricades shall be put up at a distance of 100 metres of the display point on all sides and no one except the persons who are performing fire works display shall be permitted into the prohibited area of 100 metres.

(iv) The quantity of the fireworks shall be limited to 15 kilograms.

(v) The police department and other statutory authorities shall supervise the entire fireworks display and issue necessary directions, if necessary.

(vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions, it will be open to the A.D.M. or other competent officials to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

This Writ Petition will stand disposed of as 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