Disposed

Valavanad Puthenkavu Devi Ksetram, v. the Government of India

Kerala HC5 Feb 2019WP(C)/3073/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Divisional Officer to inspect site arrangements and safety measures, report to the District Collector, who must then consider the petitioners LE6 license application and grant relaxation regarding the three-month deadline without delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the sixth respondent to inspect safety measures, report to the third respondent, who shall consider the application and grant relaxation in time limit without delay.

Valavanad Puthenkavu Devi Ksetram, Vs the Government of India — Kerala HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 16TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3073 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VALAVANAD PUTHENKAVU DEVI KSETRAM, AGED 68 YEARS

¶8

REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT SUBHAGAN, S/O.KRISHNAPPAN, GOWRIKRISHNA, KALAVOOR.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688522.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY SMT.NITHYA SUGUNAN SMT.SNEHA ROSE

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

1 THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANIZATION (PESO), O/O THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLSIVES, KENDRIYA BHAGAN, KAKKANAD,

¶13

ERNAKULAM-682037.

¶14

2 THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD-682037.

¶15

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA-688001.

¶16

4 THE TAHASILDAR AMPALAPUZHA-688561.

¶17

5 THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

¶18

FIRE AND RESCUE OPERATION DEPARTMENT, ALAPPUZHA-688001.

¶19

6 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA-688001.

¶20

BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

¶21

SRI.B VINOD, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No. 3073 of 2019 2

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶26

seeking the following reliefs :-

¶27

i) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Exhibit P3 and P4.

¶28

To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P6 rejection order and to consider Ext.P2 application afresh, in accordance with Explosive Rules 2008.

¶29

ii) To issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction to consider Ext.P2 application afresh, as the deficiencies noted in Ext.P6 has been cured by the petitioner, in accordance with Explosive Rules 2008.

¶30

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other writ order direction, permitting the petitioner for the display of fire works, within the ambit of LE6 license.

¶31

iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or other writ order direction directing the 6^th respondent to grant NOC within a time limit.

¶32

It is submitted by the learned counsel

¶33

for the petitioner that the request made by

¶34

the petitioner for LE6 license for conduct of

¶35

WP(C).No. 3073 of 2019 3

¶36

fire works display in connection with the

¶37

temple festival is not been considered by the District Magistrate for the sole reason that the application is not submitted prior to three months as provided in Ext.P3 cercular.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶39

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Central Government Counsel.

¶40

It is submitted by the learned Central Government Counsel, on instructions, that the three months period as per Ext.P3 circular is insisted upon, to enable the District Magistrate to take an informed decision as to the compliance with the requirements of law. It is stated that in appropriate cases, it is

¶41

for the District Magistrate to take a

¶42

decision as to the applicability of the three months dead line.

¶43

WP(C).No. 3073 of 2019 4

¶44

Having heard the leaned counsel

¶45

appearing on either side, I am of the opinion that the application preferred by the petitioner is liable to be considered by the District Magistrate, after obtaining all due reports including from the sixth respondent as to the adequacy of the safety measures taken by the petitioner.

¶46

In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the sixth respondent to make an inspection of the site arrangement and the safety measures and forwarded the report to the 3^rd respondent. The third respondent shall thereupon consider the request of the petitioner for LE6 license, as also for relaxation in the three months period for submission of the application. Appropriate orders shall be passed after hearing the petitioner also, without delay,

¶47

WP(C).No. 3073 of 2019 5

¶48

taking note of the fact that the display is

¶49

due to be conducted on 19.2.2019. The petitioner will be free to produce any material he relies on before the respondents in support of his application.

¶50

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

SD/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

ACM / 6.02.2019

JUDGE

WP(C).No. 3073 of 2019 6

¶56

APPENDIX

¶57

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶58

EXHIBIT P1 A	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.511/ALP ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED MARCH 2012.
EXHIBIT P1 B	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.FD- 03/ALPY/2016 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 18/2/2016.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM AE6 DATED 4.1.19.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.M-41 ISSUED BY THE 1SG RESPONDENT, DATED 19/02/2018.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.10/2018 DATED 26/03/2018.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.371/2019 DATED 9.1.2019 OF THE HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 7.1.2019
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY PESO TO THE MANUFACTURER FROM WHOM THE PRODUCT IS SUPPLIED.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.1.2019.

Valavanad Puthenkavu Devi Ksetram, v. the Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valavanad Puthenkavu Devi Ksetram, v. the Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hareesh.R.v. Vs the Managing Director

Krishna Haridas Vs Shajahan

K.K.Sajeevan, Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Prathibha K., Vs State of Kerala

Sreekanteswara Kshetra Yogam Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan.P. Vs the Special Thahsildar