IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 6357 of 2008(F)
1. SURESH BABU.P., S/O.PRABHAKARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.
... Respondent
2. THE R.D.O, ADOOR.
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. PUTHIYA KAVU DEVI TEMPLE, MANNADI,
5. RAVINDRAN, S/O.NEELAKANDAN NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.SASITH PANICKER
For Respondent :SRI. K.SHAJ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :27/02/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= =W.P.(C)= = = = = = = = = = =
= = =
No. 6357 OF 2008 f
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 27th February, 2008
J U D G M E N T
In this writ petition the main complaint of the writ petitioner is
that respondents 1 to 3 shall not conduct any fire work display
otherwise than in accordance with the provisions contained in the
Explosives Rules, the Supreme Court judgment reported in Re-noise
Pollution {(2005) 3 ILR 675} and also Ext. P12 circular issued by the
Director General of Police. Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent
submits that what is now described as a display of fire works by the
petitioner is only a vazhipadu and that such vazhipadu does not
come within the restrictions of the aforesaid rule, circular or the
judgment. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that if at all
there is any fire works that will only in compliance with the statutory
provisions, Ext. P12 circular and the judgment of the Apex Court.
This submission made by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent
should redress the grievance of the writ petitioner substantially.
W.P.(C) No. 6357 OF 2008 -2-
2. If it is only a vazhipadu as stated by the learned counsel,
the petitioner cannot have any grievance as it is a common thing in
all temples.
3. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing that in
the event the 5th respondent resorts to any display of fire works that
shall only be on the strength of a licence issued under the
Explosives Rules, and in terms of Ext. P12 circular issued by the
Director General of Police.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-