Karnataka HC Reverses Single Judge, Upholds Mangaluru Civic Body's Power to Insist on Fire NOC for Cracker Shops

A Division Bench at Bengaluru set aside a Single Judge order that had quashed the Health Officer's NOC requirement, holding public safety outweighs private trading interest.

The High Court of Karnataka's Division Bench — comprising Justice D K Singh and Justice T M Nadaf — on 17 July 2026 reversed a Single Judge order that had quashed the Mangaluru Mahanagara Palike's direction requiring firecracker retailers to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the Karnataka State Fire and Emergency Services Department before operating their shops. Writing for the Bench, Justice T M Nadaf held that the NOC requirement is a legitimate preventive safety measure, that the private interest of traders stands subordinate to public interest, and that the Writ Court had erred in striking down the direction solely on the ground that no express statutory provision mandated it. The Bench gave the three respondent partnership firms two weeks to apply for the NOC and directed the Fire Department to issue it within two weeks of compliance with all requisitions.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Three Mangaluru-based partnership firms — M/s Maya Traders, M/s B. Ganapathy Bhandarkar and Sons, and M/s Shets Fire Works Shop — had been selling firecrackers under licences in Form LE-5 valid until 2025, 2028, and 2032 respectively, along with trade licences issued by the Mangaluru Mahanagara Palike. They told the Writ Court that they had operated under these licences for nearly a decade without ever being required to produce a separate NOC from the Fire Department.

On 7 November 2023 — just before Deepavali and Dasara — the Health Officer, Mangaluru (respondent No. 2 before the Writ Court) issued orders under reference No. MaNaPa/Arovi/CR-2023-24 cancelling or suspending the licences of all three firms unless they produced a Fire Department NOC. The traders said the timing was particularly damaging: they had stocked crackers worth crores, financed through bank and financial institution credit, and the closure of their shops directly threatened their right to carry on trade under Article 19 of the Constitution.

The Health Officer's action followed a report by the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, dated 20 October 2023, which found the traders were dealing in crackers in alleged violation of government guidelines on green crackers issued for the district.

What the Single Judge Decided

The Writ Court allowed the petition on 10 November 2023. When the Single Judge asked the Health Officer's counsel under what legal provision the NOC requirement rested, counsel could not point to any. The Writ Court accordingly held that “in the absence of any applicable law however good the intention of the Health Officer may be, he cannot on his own seek for implementation of a particular requirement when the law does not contemplate it to be so.” The licences were restored and the three impugned orders quashed, with a rider that authorities remained free to act if the traders violated applicable law.

The Mangaluru Mahanagara Palike and the Health Officer, as respondents 1 and 2 in the Writ Petition, filed Writ Appeal No. 694 of 2025 under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging that decision.

Appellants' Arguments and the SOP

Sri K N Nitish, appearing for Sri K V Narasimhan for the Palike and the Health Officer, urged the Division Bench that the Single Judge had failed to consider the Supreme Court's observations in Arjun Gopal and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 728 of 2015). He submitted that the government had issued guidelines for the sale of green crackers in Dakshina Kannada District and that those guidelines made an NOC from the Fire Department mandatory for cracker traders. Because the petitioners had not obtained any such NOC, the Health Officer was right to act on the Deputy Commissioner's report.

Sri K Chandranath Ariga, appearing for the three firms, supported the Writ Court's view: in the absence of any applicable law, the cancellation order was unsustainable and the Division Bench should not interfere.

The Division Bench, while considering the submissions, placed significant weight on an Office Order of the Director General & Inspector General of Police, Karnataka State Fire and Emergency Services, dated 1 February 2024, which issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) covering retail sale of crackers, cracker godowns, and cracker manufacture. The SOP was directed to all Fire Station Officers, District Fire Officers, Regional Fire Officers, and Chief Fire Officers, who were instructed to obtain it from the department's website and strictly adhere to it.

The SOP sets out detailed requirements for retail cracker outlets. Among the stipulations the Bench noted:

• Structures must be built of non-combustible materials, sized at least 10 × 10 feet, with groups of five shops maintaining a seven-metre gap between groups.
• A safety distance of at least three metres between structures and fifty metres from any protected area must be maintained; no more than fifty shops per cluster.
• Two ABC-type fire extinguishers of 9 kg capacity, two water-type extinguishers of 9 litres, fire blankets, sand buckets, and a 200-litre water reserve are required per structure.
• Smoke detectors, heat detectors, and fire alarms must be installed throughout the outlet.
• Security cameras are to be installed and fire drills conducted at minimum every three months.
• A fire licence is mandatory and must be renewed every year from the Fire Department; the premises must be jointly inspected by the Fire Department, Police, Pollution Control Board, labour and other agencies before a licence is sanctioned.
• Awareness programmes for the public and school students on burn injuries, eye burns, and pollution must be conducted by the Fire Department one month before the festival season begins.

How the Division Bench Reasoned

The Bench acknowledged that the Writ Court's analysis was technically correct in one respect: without an express statutory provision, an authority cannot impose conditions it has simply invented. That principle, the Bench said, remains sound. But it held that the Writ Court had “swayed much on the absence of any applicable provisions” without adequately weighing public safety imperatives.

Justice Nadaf, writing the judgment, observed that fire hazards in cracker shops and godowns had claimed lives in recent times, including those of children. Firecrackers are highly inflammable and hazardous materials, and their use in large quantities during festivals had become embedded in public culture — bringing with it proportionate risks. The requirement of an NOC was designed solely as a preventive measure to verify that a retail premises met prescribed fire safety standards: adequate fire prevention systems, emergency evacuation arrangements, and other safeguards. That purpose, the Bench held, placed the NOC requirement squarely within the “reasonable restrictions” contemplated by Article 19 of the Constitution.

The Bench further held that the Mangaluru Mahanagara Palike, constituted under Article 243Q of the Constitution as a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area, carries bounded duties including the power to prevent fire hazards that risk the public. The exercise of that power — insisting on an NOC — could not be characterised as arbitrary or unreasonable. On the contrary, it was grounded in the principle that private interest stands subordinate to public interest.

On the SOP, the Bench directed that it be meticulously maintained and implemented within every firecracker retail premises. It placed an express duty on the Fire Department to ensure that all persons engaged in the retail sale of firecrackers, including the three petitioner firms, comply with the SOP.

Outcome

The Division Bench allowed Writ Appeal No. 694 of 2025 and set aside the Single Judge's order dated 10 November 2023 in W.P. No. 25099 of 2023.

The three respondent firms — M/s Maya Traders, M/s B. Ganapathy Bhandarkar and Sons, and M/s Shets Fire Works Shop — were directed to approach the Fire Department (respondent No. 4) within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order, by filing an application for NOC. If the application is filed and all requisitions complied with, the Fire Department must issue the NOC within two weeks thereafter.

On obtaining the NOC, the three firms are at liberty to carry on their business in terms of the Form LE-5 licences and trade licences available to them. The Palike and the Health Officer retain the liberty to take action under the law in case of any violations. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stood disposed of.