Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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

Similar News