Disposed

V.Girijan, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Feb 2020WP(C)/4037/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging rejection of fireworks permission for temple festival. Court ordered respondent to reconsider application if petitioner produces proof of safe storage and risk assessment plan before 5 PM of display date, permitting one additional fireworks item.

What did the court decide?

Order to reconsider application by second respondent by 5 pm on Feb 14, 2020, upon production of specific safety documents and license proof.

V.Girijan, Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 24TH MAGHA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No.4037 OF 2020(D)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

V.GIRIJAN,PRESIDENT, PANAMANNA SREE MALOLMA BAGAVATHI TEMPLE FESTIVAL COMMITTEE, MANIYAMTHOTTIL VEEDU, ANANGANADI, SHORNUR 679 121.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. SMT.C.SEENA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶13

2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD 678 001

¶14

3 THAHSILDHAR, TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPALAM 679 101

¶15

4 DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION (PESO) KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK C-2 3RD FLOOR, CSEZ P.O, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682 037

¶16

W.P.(C)N0.4037 of 2020

¶17

¶18

5 DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, PALAKKAD 678 002

¶19

R1 TO R3 & R5 BY G.P.SMT.K.R.DEEPA R4 BY ASG SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C)N0.4037 of 2020

JUDGMENT

Ravikumar, J.

Denial of the request for fireworks display in Panamanna Sree Malolma Bhagavathi Temple constrained the petitioner, who is the President of the festival committee of the said temple, to file this writ petition. Ext.P1 is the application submitted therefor. It is dated 21.12.2019. The same was rejected as per Ext.P7 order dated 11.2.2020. A perusal of Ext.P7 order would reveal that the application was rejected assigning three grounds:-

¶26

(i) Non availability of the magazine in terms of the prescriptions of PESO.

¶27

(ii) The person who is entrusted to conduct display of fireworks is not the person who obtained licence of fireworks display from PESO.

¶28

(iii) The Risk Assessment Plan was not prepared and produced.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Learned

¶30

Government Pleader and also the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the 4^th respondent.

¶31

W.P.(C)N0.4037 of 2020

¶32

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a bare perusal of Ext.P3 itself would reveal that the person who was entrusted to conduct the display of fireworks is possessing the requisite licence therefor, from PESO. It is factually incorrect to say that the person who is entrusted to conduct fireworks display is not the person who possesses licence for fireworks display from PESO, it is contended. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that Ext.P7 itself would reveal that the petitioner had sought for permission to use mobile magazine for the purpose of safety storage of the fireworks materials. Obviously, that fact was not taken into consideration while passing Ext.P7. A perusal of Ext.P7 would reveal that without considering whether such arrangement is sufficient the second respondent entered into a finding that magazine as prescribed by the PESO is not available. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is prepared to produce a Risk Assessment Plan.

¶34

Taking note of the fact that in the temple concerned fireworks display had been conducted for the past several years and taking into account the reasons assigned by the second respondent for

¶35

W.P.(C)N0.4037 of 2020

¶36

¶37

rejecting the application we are of the view that the application submitted by the petitioner requires a reconsideration. Taking note of the fact that the permission was sought for to conduct fireworks display on 14.2.2020 in the said temple, such a re-consideration is required expeditiously, at any rate, before 5 p.m. on 14.2.2020.

¶38

We have already taken note of the fact that the petitioner has sought for permission to use mobile magazine (portable magazine) before the second respondent. The fact that the person who is entrusted to conduct the fireworks display is possessing PESO licence therefor is evident from Ext.P3. We have also taken note of the fact that the petitioner is prepared to produce the Risk Assignment Plan before the second respondent. In the said circumstances, in case the petitioner produces materials to show that arrangements have been made for providing portable magazine, to show that the person who is entrusted to conduct fireworks display is possessing the requisite licence from PESO and also produces the Risk Assessment Plan the application shall be taken up and it shall be reconsidered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the second respondent thereon not later than by 5 p.m. on 14.2.2020.

¶39

W.P.(C)N0.4037 of 2020

¶40

¶41

Since Ext.P1 application would reveal that the petitioner has requested for conducting fireworks display with Olapadakkam - 1000, Colour amit - 500 and since we are not proposing to issue any direction to consider the question of grant of fireworks with colour amit, the petitioner is permitted to make an additional application adding further permissible items for the fireworks display and to seek permission to conduct the fireworks using such materials in addition to Olapadakkam. The said request shall also be considered while reconsidering the application.

¶42

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge

¶45

Sd/- N.NAGARESH Judge

¶46

TKS

¶47

W.P.(C)N0.4037 of 2020

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX

¶50

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶51

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21/12/2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LE3 LICENSE BEARING NO. E/HQ/KL/21/98 (E82371) ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 6-5-2019

¶52

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 7/2/2020 BEARING NO D1 2020/729/9/400 SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT

¶53

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INSURANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY

¶54

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE N.O.C DATED 10/2/2020 BEARING NO A 500/2020 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT

¶55

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EMERGENCY PLAN AND SITE AND LOCATION PLAN OF THE FIREWORKS DISPLAY PLOT.

¶56

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/2/2020 BEARING FILE NO. DCPKD/53/2020-D3 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶57

TKS

V.Girijan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Girijan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suo Motu Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Anil Kumar, Vs State of Kerala

The Managing Committee, Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Sreekrishnan O Vs the District Collector

Reghu P.K Vs the District Collector

L.Parameswaran Vs the District Collector