Puttingal firework mishap: Official apathy led to tragedy

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The 65-page inquiry report of the joint chief controller of explosives, A.K. Yadav,  into the Puttingal firework mishap  has listed a series of lapses right from the application submitted by the temple authorities seeking permission for the fireworks and the conduct of a competitive fireworks defying the ban orders.  The report   into the mishap that claimed 110 lives and left 461 injured in the wee hours of  April 10  pointed out that firework mishaps were not isolated affairs in Kerala with seven incidents being reported between 2010 and 2016. 

Non-adherence to statutory regulations was the primary cause for the accidents. The conduct of fireworks display without a valid licence is the usual practice in Kerala. The report also said that a mishap had taken  place in the Puttingal temple in 1929 leading to death of five and injury to 100 people, consequent to which the firework was discontinued till 1974. The following are  the major lapses listed  by the probe.

INCOMPLETE APPLICATION

The application submitted by the Puttingal devaswom managing committee secretary J. Krishnan Kutty Pillai to the district magistrate on February 23 seeking licence for the firework display at 9 p.m. on April 9 did not contain many mandatory information like qualification and experience of the firework contractor. The location of storage shed of explosives and minimum distance of 100 metres between display area and spectators were not marked in the site plan submitted.

Many other mandatory information were not available in the application. "Due to
the lapses in the submitted application, the district magistrate should have rejected the application itself. However, the application was accepted and forwarded to various departments for inquiry and report," said the report.

DELAYED DECISION
 
Even though the Puttingal devaswom managing committee submitted the application on February 23, the decision not to grant the licence was taken only on April 8.  As licences for display were being issued in normal course during earlier years, the temple authorities went ahead with the preparations for the display firework on April 9, contracts were awarded to firework manufacturers and wide publicity regarding firework was given.

"The refusal order should have been issued at an earlier date and wide publicity could have been given by the district magistrate through visual and print media regarding denial of licence. This could have prevented a large number of people from gathering on  the temple premises to witness the display.

FAILURE IN PREVENTIVE MEASURES

The district police authorities were aware of the refusal of the licence by the district magistrate for the display of fireworks at the temple.  Being aware of this fact they should have taken preventive measures to see that the temple authorities did not go ahead with the display. However, the inquiry found that the display  was conducted in the presence  of police personnel,  Kollam tahasildar and Paravur village officer. Lack of communication between the police and district administration was also evident. No on-site or off-site disaster management plans were prepared by the temple authorities or the district administration.

COMPETITIVE FIREWORK

Though it was not mentioned in the application that a competitive firework was being conducted, the inquiry found that it was competition between two parties. The details of only one firework contractor were  mentioned in the application form. By the time the district magistrate denied permission to the firework on April 8, the Puttingal devaswom managing committee had made all arrangements for the firework. While the temple committee made last -minute efforts on April 9 to get permission, the fireworks manufactured for the display were brought to the spot in large numbers and people had also assembled at the spot. Hence by 9 p.m. they decided to go ahead with the firework defying the ban and two manufactures were competing with each other for the display. Since the display started late and there was paucity of time, both manufactures carried out the display simultaneously.

HIGH QUANTITY AND LOW QUALITY FIREWORKS

The inquiry report also pointed out that while submitting the application for firework, the temple authorities maintained that the quantity of firework to be used for display was 12 kilograms, which included 10,000 crackers, 200 ‘ammitus,’  100 ‘kalayam’ and 100 other items. This is ridiculous considering the number of items used during display, said the report. In a spirit of competition and to  win prize money,  large- sized aerial shells were manufactured and displayed thus endangering the safety of the spectators and even the operators.

The fireworks manufactured were of poor quality, as indicated the by the local height at which the shell exploded after firing, sen ing burning embers in all directions. Aerial shells without any pro ection from ignition were carried to the display site from the storage shed even when the display was in progress. It was also found that large quantities of unauthorised fireworks containing banned chemicals were stored in unauth rised premises in the safety zone of the display site.

Whole thing started off with a spark

According to the inquiry report, a large number of display fireworks, including aerial shells of various diameters and palm leaf crackers were stored in the storage shed. A number of workers engaged for display were carrying these aerial display items to be located into the mortars when the display of fireworks was ongoing at the temple premises.

The sparks emanated from one of the display items fell on a shell which was being carried by a worker to the display site and the shell exploded triggering simultaneous explosions at three locations. This resulted in the mass explosion of various kinds of display fireworks stored in the storage shed, completely destroying the shed. The projectiles from the storage shed were thrown in all directions with great velocity killing and injuring people in their path.