Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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