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) 21692

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. Jayachandran, J
K. Suresh – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 11380 OF 2026|WP(C) NO. 11413 OF 2026|WP(C) NO. 11520 OF 2026|WP(C) NO. 11529 OF 2026|WP(C) NO. 11543 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN, SMT.KEERTHANA SARIGA T.S.
For the Respondents: SHRI.K.K.SETHUKUMAR, CGC, SHRI.M.JAYAKRISHNAN, CGC, SHRI.P.M.UNNI NAMBOODIRI, CGC, SMT.GOWRI MENON, CGC

Refusals for fireworks display permissions unsustainable if prior judgments addressed grounds; grant subject to safety conditions.

Headnote:Petitioners sought permission for fireworks display under relevant explosives regulations, including licenses in Forms LE-1, LE-6, LE-11A, onsite emergency plans, and risk assessments. District Collector refused permissions citing unapproved crackers, lack of PESO-approved plans, absence of permanent magazine, and no cracker list. Court found refusals unsustainable based on prior precedents, setting aside orders and directing permissions subject to conditions like portable magazines, barricades, quantity limits, and supervision. Issues involved validity of refusals on common grounds addressed in earlier judgments (Exts.P10-P13). Ratio: Objections regarding PESO approvals, magazines, and lists do not bar permissions when prior decisions bind, emphasizing compliance with display conditions over rigid prerequisites. Writ petitions allowed; permissions granted with specified safety conditions.

Table of Content
1. petitioners aggrieved by fireworks permission refusals on common grounds. (Para 1)
2. refusals unsustainable per prior judgments; permissions directed with conditions. (Para 2)
3. notify adm; writs allowed as above. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the Orders which are produced at Ext.P8, whereby, the requests of the respective petitioners for permission for the display of fireworks have been refused by the 1st respondent/District Collector. The reasons/grounds stated in Ext.P8 is common to the following effect:

The first is that the petitioners can use only crackers approved by the Chief Controller of Explosives. The second is with respect to the absence of a risk assessment plan and onsite emergency plan, as approved by P.E.S.O. The third is the absence of a permanent magazine. The last reason is with respect to the petitioners’ failure to produce a list of the crackers intended to be used.

2. This Court notice that all these objections are subject matter of the judgments of this Court in various cases, especially those produced at Exts.P10 to P13. For the same set of reasons as narrated in Exts.P10 to P13, Ext.P8 Orders in all these five Writ Petitions cannot be sustained and the same will stand set aside. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent/District Collector to grant permission to the respective petitioners for display of fireworks on the days mentioned subject to the following conditions:

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

(ii) The petitioners shall satisfy all other requisite conditions for fireworks display under LE-6 license 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 fireworks 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.

3. The learned Government Pleader will inform the gist of the judgment to the 3rd respondent/A.D.M. forthwith.

These Writ Petitions will stand allowed, as indicated above.

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