MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Unlock Premises and Comply with Safety Measures: Karnataka High Court Orders in Firecracker Sale Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling by the Karnataka High Court, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj ordered the unlocking of premises and strict compliance with safety measures for the sale of firecrackers in Bengaluru.

The court was hearing a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by firecracker sellers, who faced hurdles in conducting their business due to their premises being locked by authorities. The petitioners, represented by senior counsel Sri. Satish M. Doddamani and advocate Sri. Sagar B.B., argued that despite holding a valid license, their business operations were unjustly hampered.

In his order, Justice Govindaraj emphasized the need for adherence to safety standards, stating, “The petitioners in this petition shall conduct their respective businesses strictly in consonance with the observations made in the inspection report dated 8.11.2023.” This directive came after the Deputy Solicitor General of India, Sri. Shanthi Bhushan, presented an inspection report indicating non-compliance by the petitioners.

Further, the court mandated that any deviations from the safety observations or failure to implement necessary corrective measures would expose the petitioners to the risk of suspension of their business. The Deputy Commissioner was instructed to inspect and take action based on compliance by the petitioners.

Highlighting the need for thorough license verification, the court also ordered that in future, the Deputy Commissioner should sign or e-sign every page of the license. In cases of disputed licenses, forensic verification was directed, with the Chief Secretary instructed to initiate disciplinary action in cases of unauthorized signatures.

The ruling also referenced the precedent set in the case of M/s Cracker Bazaar vs Commissioner of Police and others, guiding the current decision-making process.

This judgement is seen as a crucial step in balancing the rights of businesses to operate within legal frameworks while ensuring public safety and adherence to regulatory standards. The court’s decision to dispose of the writ petition with specific directions underscores its commitment to upholding legal procedures and safety norms in commercial activities.

With specific directions underscores its commitment to upholding legal procedures and safety norms in commercial activities.

Date of Decision: 10 November, 2023

SMT. SWETHA .M VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Latest Legal News