Petitioners sought an order directing the Additional District Magistrate to decide pending applications for firing crackers licences filed in December 2019, adhering to the Court's prior time-bound directions.
Direction to the 3rd respondent to pass orders on pending applications by 5 p.m. on 28.02.2020.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WP(C).No.5485 OF 2020(I)
PETITIONERS:
1 C.SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED 51 YEARS S/O.GOPALA MENON, PRESIDENT, SREE MARATTIL KOTTARAM VADAKKE CHERUVARAM, MARADU, KOCHI-682304.
2 KRISHNAKUMAR K.G., AGED 44 YEARS S/O.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN, PRESIDENT, SREE MARATTIL KOTTARAM THEKKE CHERUVARAM, MARADU, KOCHI-682304.
BY ADVS. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SRI.G.RENJITH SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR SRI.T.H.ARAVIND SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENTS:
WP(C) No.5485 OF 2020(I)
2
4 THE TAHASILDAR, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682011.
GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. ANANDAKRISHNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.5485 OF 2020(I)
3
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2020
Ravikumar, J.
The first petitioner is an office bearer of Sree Marattil Kottaram Bhagavathi Temple - Vadakke Cheruvaram and the second petitioner is an office bearer of Thekke Cheruvaram. They submitted Exts.P6 and P7 applications respectively seeking grant of licence for public display of fireworks, viz. for getting LE-6 licence for public fireworks display. Ext.P6 is undated and Ext.P7 is dated 27.12.2019. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that Ext.P6 application was filed on the same day on which Ext.P7 application was submitted. The grievance of the petitioners is regarding the non-consideration of the said applications by the 3rd respondent. In Exts.P6 and P7 applications, they have specifically mentioned the dates on which the fireworks display is proposed. In Ext.P6 application
WP(C) No.5485 OF 2020(I)
4
filed by the first petitioner, the scheduled dates and time of
display have been mentioned as hereunder:-
The proposed location for the fireworks display is shown in
Ext.P6 as property in Survey No.369/15. In Ext.P7
application, the dates and time of display have been shown
as:-
The location is shown therein as 'South side of Maradu
Kottaram Bhagavathi Temple'.
WP(C) No.5485 OF 2020(I)
5
that on all those dates immediately after the conclusion of the fireworks display by Vadakke Cheruvaram, the fireworks display by Thekke Cheruvaram would begin, if permission is granted. Be that as it may, it is a fact that despite the submission of the applications as early as in December, 2019, showing the proposed dates for fireworks display as 02.03.2020, 05.03.2020, 06.03.2020 and 09.03.2020, the 2nd respondent has not passed any orders thereon. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court raising grievances against the non-consideration of Exts.P6 and P7.
WP(C) No.5485 OF 2020(I)
6
directions to the effect that application for licence for public display of fireworks should be submitted to the office of the District Magistrate concerned two months prior to the scheduled date of display and if approved, permission should be granted at least one month prior to the display date. It cannot be said that such a time schedule was specified in the said judgment without any purpose. It is certainly fixed as such with a view to ensure that if ultimately permission is granted, the manufacturer, viz. the person possessing LE-1 licence, should get adequate time for manufacturing the required quantity of fireworks. So also, in case the application is rejected, the party concerned should get an opportunity to assail the adverse order. It is relevant to note that a reference of the said judgment carrying such a direction is specifically mentioned in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.4075/2019, which is produced in this writ petition as Ext.P5. May be happenstance, the said writ petition was also one filed seeking permission for conducting fireworks display in the very same temple involved in this case and that apart,
WP(C) No.5485 OF 2020(I)
7
the 1st petitioner herein was the 1st petitioner therein. Evidently, despite such a direction issued in W.P.(C) No.9250/2018, the respondents did not dispose of Exts.P6 and P7 applications seeking permission for public fireworks display within the time frame fixed by this Court. The aforesaid applications were submitted in December, 2019. It is also specifically stated in the said applications that the festival in the temple is to commence from 02.03.2020. If someone attributes intention in the matter of causing delay in consideration as one to deprive the applicants breathing time to take up the matter if an adverse order is passed on Exts.P6 and P7, we cannot find fault with him. Provisions under the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008 and the relevant Circulars would reveal that certain specified authorities alone are authorised to consider applications for grant of licence for public display of fireworks. The Apex Court held that disuse of power is equally contemptuous as abuse or misuse of power. In such circumstances, the authority concerned is bound to pass orders in accordance
WP(C) No.5485 OF 2020(I)
8
with law, after taking into account all attending circumstances. The facilities and arrangements made in the location by the parties concerned have been specifically mentioned in the applications and normally, when such an application is filed, the Additional District Magistrate/District Magistrate will conduct an inspection through different authorities to ascertain the adequacy of the arrangements and to decide whether application for permission is grantable or not. In the case on hand, the applications which were filed in the last week of December, 2019 are still pending before the 2nd respondent. We are not pleased with the delay in the matter of consideration of the said applications despite the specific direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.9250/2018 fixing the time schedule for consideration. Taking into account the fact that the festival in the temple is to be commenced from 02.03.2020, we are of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to take up Exts.P6 and P7 applications and pass orders thereon taking into account the relevant provisions under the Explosives Act,
WP(C) No.5485 OF 2020(I)
9
1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008 and the relevant Circulars and orders passed by various authorities including Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation. Orders on the aforesaid applications shall be passed on or before 28.02.2020, not later than by 5 p.m. on that day. Such orders shall immediately be communicated to the petitioners.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE
Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/26.02.2020
WP(C) No.5485 OF 2020(I)
10
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.D.DIS.M4102255/2016 DATED 04.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 07.03.2017 IN W.P.(C)NO.7457 OF 2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 72 OF 1998 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 26.03.2007. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.02.2019 IN WP(C)NO.4075 OF 2019. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the authorities discharged their duty to consider the pending applications for public fireworks display licence within the time limit directed by earlier judgments?
C. Santhosh Kumar
Krishnakumar K.G.
State of Kerala
District Collector, Ernakulam
Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam
Tahasildar, Kanayannoor
C.T. Ravikumar
N. Nagares
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
