Permanent Fireworks-Shop Rules Do Not Apply To Temporary-Shop Licence Applications: Kerala High Court
The Court directed the District Collector to decide the petitioner’s application within three weeks after strictly examining its compliance with Rule 84 of the Explosives Rules, 2008.
Justice G. Girish, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that rules governing permanent fireworks shops do not apply to applications for temporary-shop licences, which must instead be considered under Rule 84 of the Explosives Rules, 2008.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the District Collector’s insistence that the petitioner establish compliance with the amended Rules 83 and 86 while seeking a temporary fireworks-shop licence for the festival season.
A Bench of Justice G. Girish observed: “As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Rule 84 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, governs the requirements and eligibility conditions to be fulfilled for the grant of temporary license for possession and sale of fireworks in a temporary shop. Therefore, what the authorities are expected to scrutinise, is the compliance of the requirements of the Rule 84 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, on the question of granting temporary licence for fireworks shops. Thus, there is no justification for insisting the compliance of the amendments made to Rule 83 and Rule 86 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, vide Ext.P3, for the grant of temporary licence for the conduct of fireworks shop.”
The Court added: “This aspect could be further discerned from the wordings of Sub Rule 7 of Rule 86, which emphasises the term ‘existing fireworks shop’. It has to be taken that the legislature has consciously incorporated the above term in Sub Rule 7 of Rule 86, to make it clear that the requirements stipulated thereunder are meant for fireworks shops of permanent nature.”
Advocate Biju Balakrishnan appeared for the petitioner. Government Pleader Sreehari Indu Kaladharan represented the District Collector, while Deputy Solicitor General of India O.M. Shalina appeared for the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives.
Background
The petitioner had been conducting temporary fireworks sales during festival seasons. He applied to the District Collector for a temporary licence to operate a fireworks shop during the ensuing festival season.
The District Collector directed the concerned Tahsildar, Station House Officer and District Fire Officer to examine whether the petitioner had complied with requirements introduced through amendments to Rules 83 and 86 and to submit their recommendations.
The petitioner contended that those amended requirements did not apply to temporary fireworks shops and that his application had to be assessed under Rule 84 alone. The Government Pleader submitted that the writ petition was premature because the District Collector had not yet decided the application and was awaiting reports from the concerned authorities.
Court’s Observations
The Court accepted the petitioner’s contention that Rule 84 specifically governs the requirements and eligibility conditions for granting a temporary licence for possessing and selling fireworks from a temporary shop.
The Court held that the licensing authorities were consequently required to examine whether the petitioner satisfied Rule 84. It found no justification for requiring compliance with the amendments to Rules 83 and 86 as a condition for granting a temporary licence.
The Court relied on the language of Rule 86(7), particularly its use of the expression “existing fireworks shop”. It held that this language showed that the legislature consciously intended the requirements under that provision to apply to fireworks shops of a permanent nature.
The Court consequently found the petitioner’s request to have his application considered without applying the newly introduced requirements under Rule 86 to be fully justified.
The Court clarified that excluding the amended Rule 86 requirements did not entitle the petitioner to a temporary licence automatically. His application remained subject to strict scrutiny under Rule 84.
The District Collector and the other concerned authorities were therefore required to verify the petitioner’s compliance with every applicable requirement under Rule 84 before deciding whether the temporary licence should be granted.
Conclusion
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the District Collector and the concerned authorities to consider the temporary-licence application without applying the requirements introduced through the amendment to Rule 86.
The Court directed that the application be strictly scrutinised for compliance with Rule 84 and that the District Collector take a decision within three weeks from receiving a copy of the judgment.
Cause Title: Prasanth K. v. District Collector and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:77035)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates Biju Balakrishnan, V.S. Rakhee, Akshaya S. Nair, Jayakumar C. and Sandra Sunny Otta
Respondents: Government Pleader Sreehari Indu Kaladharan; Deputy Solicitor General of India O.M. Shalina