Madras High Court
WP(MD)/31635/2026 of P.Samuthra Pandian Vs The District Revenue Officer on 4 November 2026
WP(MD) No. 31635 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR
RAMAMOORTHY
WP(MD) No. 31635 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011588742026}
AND
WMP(MD) Nos. 24317 & 24318 of 2026
P.Samuthra Pandian
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Revenue Officer
O/o The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Usilampatti Division,
Madurai District
2. The District Firework Officer
O/o The District Firework Officer,
Madurai District
3. The Superintendent of police
O/o The Superintendent Of Police,
Madurai District
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned rejection order dated 22.10.2026 passed by the 1st respondent, rejecting the petitioner’s application dated 01.10.2026 and quash the same as illegal, and consequently direct the respondents to grant the temporary fireworks shop license by considering the petitioner’s application dated 29.10.2026.
WP(MD) No. 31635 of 2026
For Petitioner(s)
:Mr.R.Dhiliban
For Respondent(s)
:Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 & R2
Mr.R.Mohamed Riyaz
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
for R3
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The petitioner applied for a temporary licence to set up a retail fireworks shop. Said request was rejected under the impugned order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a distance of at least 30 metres from the shop to the electrical transformer.
3. Accepting notice for respondents 1 and 2, Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh, learned Additional Government Pleader, submits that the Rules prescribed a minimum distance of 50 metres from a protected work. Hence, he contends that no interference is warranted. Mr.R.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), accepts notice for the third respondent.
4. As contended by learned Additional Government Pleader, sub- rule 2 of Rule 84 of the Explosives Rules prescribes that there should be a
WP(MD) No. 31635 of 2026 distance of 50 metres between the shed wherein the firecrackers are stocked and any protected work. An electric transformer would certainly fall within the scope of the expression ‘protected work’. Thus, a cogent reason has been specified for rejecting the petitioner’s application. Leaving it open to the petitioner to submit a fresh application after identifying an alternative site, this Writ Petition is disposed of. If such application for a different site were to be submitted, the first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the same expeditiously, keeping in mind that the intended sale is in connection with the Diwali festival. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 04-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No apd To
1. The District Revenue Officer O/o The Revenue Divisional Officer Usilampatti Division Madurai District
2. The District Firework Officer O/o The District Firework Officer Madurai District
3. The Superintendent of police O/o The Superintendent Of Police Madurai District
WP(MD) No. 31635 of 2026 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. apd WP(MD) No. 31635 of 2026 AND WMP(MD) No. 24317 of 2026 WMP(MD) No. 24318 of 2026 04-11-2026