Safety concerns surrounding fireworks display due to proximity of population and potential hazards were validated, leading to refusal of permission.

JUDGMENT

Ext.P6 is under challenge in this Writ Petition, which refused a permission sought for by the petitioner – in his capacity as a Secretary of Advisory Committee of Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, Nedumangad – for display of fireworks in connection with the festival of the temple scheduled on

02.04.2026.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the reasons stated in Ext.P6 cannot be sustained and many of the reasons stated are not aspects for which the petitioner can be held liable. Say for example, the incident where explosive substances were brought to the temple without any authorisation and the consequent registration of a crime bearing No.344/2024 is not an aspect for which the present petitioner can be held liable. That apart, it was argued that based on a past event, a permission sought for in the subsequent years cannot be refused. As regards another objection in page No.3 of Ext.P6 to the effect that from the nearby shops dealing with explosives, excess stock was detected, which was kept unauthorisedly, is also not a matter that the petitioner can be held answerable. The same is the situation which led to the death of a person, which is subject matter of Crime No.692/2024. Learned counsel would invite the specific attention of this Court to the last, but one paragraph of page No.3 of Ext.P6, wherein it has been observed that the courtyard of the temple has an area of approximately 200 square meters, which is an open space and that a distance of 100 meters can be ensured between the place where the fireworks is scheduled and the place where the spectators are expected to stand. As regards the absence of barricade, learned counsel would submit that the barricades are not usually erected two weeks before the date on which the fireworks is scheduled.

3. It was specifically pointed out by the learned counsel that, based on Ext.P1 Order issued by this Court, fireworks was displayed in the past year and there was no untoward incident, whatsoever. As regards the existence of 14 houses made mention of in paragraph No.2 in page No.2 of Ext.P6, the learned counsel’s answer is that they are located

200 meters away, whereas the statutory distance is only 100 meters. On the existence of a school, the same has no significance, since the display of fireworks is scheduled at 2 A.M. up to 4 A.M, during which time, no school will function. Learned counsel would hasten to add that any further requirement to ensure safety can be made by the petitioner, as instructed by the competent Authority. At any rate, refusal vide Ext.P6 cannot be sustained, is the final submission.

4. This Writ Petition was seriously opposed by the learned Government Pleader for the reasons specifically enumerated in Ext.P6. Learned Government Pleader would primarily point out that none of the authorities, including the Fire and Safety Department, Panchayath concerned, District Police Chief and the Tahsildar have supported the display of fireworks in the subject temple. The objections of the Tahsildar is dealt with in paragraph no.2 of page no.2 whereas the objections of the District Police Chief is dealt with in paragraph no.3 of page no.2 of Ext.P6.

5. Learned Government Pleader would point out that consent from the residents of 14 houses at a distance of 200 meters have not been obtained. It was also pointed out that more than 10,000 persons are likely to assemble in connection with the festival and safety cannot be ensured within the parameters of the space constraints etc. Importantly, the learned Government Pleader would point out that the temple is located quite near to reserve forest and any spa