IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6357 of 2008(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SURESH BABU.P., S/O.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 46 YEARS, THUNDATHIL (HOUSE), MANNADI P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH PANICKER SRI.M.R.SARIN PANICKER RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE R.D.O, ADOOR. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ENATHU. 4. PUTHIYA KAVU DEVI TEMPLE, MANNADI, ADOOR REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT RAVINDRAN, PRESIDENT, FESTIVAL COMMITTEE. 5. RAVINDRAN, S/O.NEELAKANDAN NAIR, SHANTHINIKETAN, MANNADI- PRESIDENT, FESTIVAL COMMITTEE, PUTHIYAKAVU DEVI TEMPLE, MANNADI, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R.SABU BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.B.BALRAJ SRI.SAJJU.S THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.6357/2008 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 25/02/1998. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 17/02/2006 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 24/02/2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PETITIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WITH THE COPIES MARKED TO R.D.O. AND C.I.OF POLICE. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BYTHE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE R.D.O. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE C.I. OF POLICE. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE FIR. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE PROTEST COMPLAINT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE FESTIVAL NOTICE. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED IN 'MALAYALA MANORAMA' DAILY DTD. 19/02/2008. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD. 25/07/07. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss 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/-