Mystery over temple’s second request

District administration had on April 8 denied permission for competitive fireworks display

The flex board announcing competitive fireworks display at the Puttingal Devi temple at Paravur, and (right) the order of the ADM, denying permission to conduct the fireworks display on April 9.

: Mystery shrouds the response of the Kollam district administration to a second petition submitted by the managing committee of the Puttingal Devi temple on April 9 to hold a pyrotechnics event at the temple.

The district administration had denied permission for the event in its April 8 order signed by the Kollam Additional District Magistrate (ADM). The order had refused permission on the grounds that inquiries made by the police had revealed that the event was of a competitive nature.

The ADM’s order said the report from the District Police Chief (City Police Commissioner P. Prakash) said that in addition to one Anarkhali of Kadakavur, the temple committee had deliberately concealed its agreement with a second person, Umesh Kumar of Kazhakuttam, to conduct the event. The commissioner’s report had mentioned that since an agreement for competitive pyrotechnics had been made on the sly with two persons, the possibility of a fireworks accident could not be ruled out.

“This being the situation, permission should not be granted to conduct a competitive pyrotechnics event there,” the ADM’s order said quoting the police report.

However, it is learnt that the committee members called on the Police Commissioner on April 9 and gave him an assurance that it would be a fireworks display based on the traditions of the temple and not a competitive event. Following this, the office of the City Police Commissioner issued a no-objection note to the district administration that if the fireworks display was not of a competitive nature, permission may be considered. Four members of the temple committee later went to the Collector’s camp office and handed over the second petition seeking sanction. But the Collector was away and the petition was handed over to the clerical staff. The members then made a phone call to a district administration authority.

It is not known what transpired in that conversation. But, soon afterwards announcements were made from the temple over the public address system that sanction had been obtained for “competitive fireworks.”

The announcer thanked a politician for intervening in the matter. The news was received with bursting of crackers. A flex board also came up heralding the conduct of the “competitive fireworks.”