Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Satyayug Party And Another vs Govt. Of A.P. And Another on 16 October, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1996AP218, AIR 1996 ANDHRA PRADESH 218, (1996) 1 ANDHLD 694 (1996) 1 ANDHWR 125, (1996) 1 ANDHWR 125
Author: C.V.N. Sastri
Bench: C.V.N. Sastri
ORDER
1. "Satyayug Party", a political party duly registered with the Election Commission of India, through its President, and its General Secretary have filed this Writ Petition questioning an order dated 3-8-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, the second respondent herein, imposing certain restrictions on the campaigning activities of the party as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(I)(a) and (b) of the Constitution, With a view to propagate its ideals and principles, Satyayug party wanted to organise a campaign in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad in the month of August, 1995 and for that purpose the first petitioner made an application to the second respondent on 1-8-1995 requesting for permission to take out a campaign from 3-8-1995 to 30-8-1995 with the following 7 items;
(1) A group consisting of 5 (five) persons.
(2) Carrying Placards and Party Flags.
(3) Using one Megaphone with Batteries.
(4) Speaking and walking in the streets (no vehicle is used).
(5) Using of Party Campaign Audio Caset-
tes.
(6) Timings 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. (7) Campaign period from 3-8-1995 to 30-8-1995.
2. By the impugned order dated 3-8-1995, the second respondent accorded permission to the first petitioner to undertake the campaign during the said period between 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. only subject to the following conditions:
(1) No mike should be used during the campaign.
(2) No Audio cassettes should be played.
(3) Campaign should be stopped by 9 a.m. sharp.
This order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it places unreasonable restrictions on their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peaceably and without arms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution. It is urged that restricting the time of the campaign between 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. only and prohibiting the use of megaphone and playing of audio casettes altogether during the campaign is highly arbitrary and unreasonable. The megaphone, which is intended to be used during the campaign, is of M.P. 71 Model with 10 watts power output only as against the normal sterio which is of 80 watts and that the use of megaphone is essential as the group of five people cannot shout collectively or independently to catch the ear of the public. It is further stated that restricting the timings between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. is not only unreasonable and arbitrary but is also dis-criminarory as the second respondent has been permitting other parties to take out processions even during peak hours. It is also stated that the Satyayug party intends to contest the forthcoming elections to the Lok Sabha and unless the petitioners are permitted to freely campaign and propagate the ideals and programmes of their party, they will be put to grave prejudice and irreparable loss.
3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegations made by the petitioners are refuted and it is asserted that the conditions imposed in the impugned order are very reasonable and in accordance with the provisions of Section 22 of the Hyderabad City Police Act 1348 Fasli and the Hyderabad City Loud-Speakers (Regulations of use) and Licensing Rules, 1963. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the said conditions are imposed in order to avoid inconvenience to the general public as well as to facilitate the movement of the traffic on the roads and streets during the peak hours. It is further stated that the city of Hyderabad is facing lot of traffic problems and any use of megaphones and audio-casettes etc., will attract the people on the streets and it is likely to cause congestion on the roads and it will be very diffecult to monitor the traffic regulations. It is also submitted that the petitioners have no fundamental right to use megaphones and that the restrictions imposed are in accordance with law and in the interest of general public and they do not affect the rights of the petitioners and that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Article 19(IXa) of the Constitution provides that all citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(2) provides that nothing in Article 19(1)(a) shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Article 19(1)(b) provides that all citizens shall have the right to assemble peaceably and without larms. Article 19(3) provides that nothing in sub-clause (b) of Clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty or integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right of conferred by the said sub-clause. The freedom speech and expression is a precious and cherished right which is considered to be the very foundation of a democratic society. The freedom of speech and expression includes the right to communicate, propagate and circulate ones views not only by word of mouth but also through all available media like the press, radio and television etc. It also carried with it the right to use mechanical appliances for reaching a wider audience. However, these rights are not unqualified or unfettered and they are subject to reasonable restrictions as envisaged in Articles 19(2) and 19(3) of the Constitution.
5. It is axiomatic that every executive action, if it is to operate to the prejudice of any person, must be supported by some legislative authority. (See Satwant Singh v. A.P.O. New Delhi . It is equally well settled that not only the law restricting the freedom should be reasonable but the orders made on the basis of that law should also be reasonable. (See Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India .
6. The impugned order in the instant case is passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348-F and the Hyderabad City Loudspeakers (Regulation of Use & Licensing) Rules, 1963. The petitioners have not questioned the validity of the said Act or the Rules. I am not, therefore, required to go into the said question. For that reason, it may not be necessary to refer to all the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. I shall, however, deal with the relevant decisions later. The matter for consideration, therefore, is whether the impugned order passed by the second respondent is in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the rules, or not.
7. Section 21 of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348-F, provides for making rules for regulation of traffic and for preservation of order. Sub-section (1) of the said Section lays down that the Commissioner of City Police may, from time to time, make rules not inconsistent with this Act in respect of the matters enumarated therein. Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 deals with regulating traffic of all kinds, in public street or public places, and regulating the use of streets and public places by person walking, driving, cycling or accompanying or leading cattle, with a view to prevent danger, inconvenience or obstruction to the public. Clause (f) thereof deals with licensing for or regulating the following matters and where it is likely to cause inconvenience, delay, danger, or damage to the residents or the persons passing in the vicinity, prohibiting -
(i) the keeping of a place or public amusement or place of public entertainment.
(ii) the playing of music in public streets of public places.
(ii-a) the using of a loud-speaker in any public place, or places of public entertainment.
.............
Section 22 of the said Act invests powers in the Commissioner of Police and other police officers to give directions to the public regarding the matters enumerated therein in conformity with any rule made under Section 21. The relevant portion of the said Section reads as follows:
"22. POWERS OF POLICE COMMISSIONER AND OTHER POLICE OFFICER TO GIVE DIRECTIONS TO THE PUBLIC :--
(1) The Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad and subject to orders of the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad every Police Officer not below the rank of an Inspector may, from time to time, as occasion may require, give such orders for the following matters either orally or in writing as may be necessary; but such orders ahll not be inconsistent with any rule made under Section 21.
(a) the mode of passing, conduct and behaviour or acts of the processions, or assemblies passing in the streets;
(b) prescribe the routes by which and the time at which such processions may or may not pass;
(c). prevent obstruction on the occasions of processions and assemblies and in the neighbourhood of any place of worship during the time of public worship and in every case when any street or public place or any place of public resort may be thronged or is likely to be obstructed;
(d) maintain order in streets, public places and all other places where public throug;
(e) regulate the music or singing in any street or public place and the beating of kettledrum, tom-toms, band, drum and the blowing of horns or other like instruments in or near any street or public place;
.................."
8. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 21 of the Act, the Commissioner of Police, with the prior sanction of the Government, made the Hyderabad City Loudspeakers (Regulation of Use and Licensing) Rules, 1963. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of the said Rules provides that no person shall install, use or operate, or permit the installation, use or 6peration of a loudspeaker in any public place or place of public entertainment at any time without obtaining a licence from the Commissioner of Police (herein referred to as the licensing authority) or from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order or the Divisional Assistant Commissioners of Police, duly authorised in this behalf by the Commissioner of Police. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 classifies the licence referred to in sub-rule (1) into three categories, namely, Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'C', Category 'C1 deals with mobile publicity with which we are concerned in the present case. Rule 3 lays down the conditions subject to which the licence for each of the categories shall be issued. The conditions for the grant of licence under Category 'C' are as follows :--
"(a) The licence holder shall use only one loudspeaker in the vehicle.
(b) The announcement shall not be heard at a distance beyond 20 yards away from the place where the "vehicle using for annouce-ment is stationed."
Rule 4 provides that no loudspeaker shall be used or operated or permitted to be used or operated by any person holding a licence within a radius of 200 metres from -- (1) any place of worship.
(2) any Court house or public office or educational institution during the working hours.
(3) any hospital, or (4) any place which has been declared as a silent zone, except with the previous consent in writing of the person or persons in the control or management of such premises.
Rule 5 provides that no loudspeaker shall be used or operated or permitted to be used or operated by any person holding a licence in such a manner as to disturb or cause annoyance to any other person residing or carrying on business in any building or premises adjoining the public place or place of public entertainment. Rule 6 provides that no loudspeaker shall be used or operated or permitted to be used or operated in any public place or place of public entertainment by any person holding a licence as aforesaid except in accordance with the conditions of the licence which may be liable to be changed from time to time. Rule 7 specifies that notwithstanding anything in these rules, no loudspeaker shall be used or operated or shall be permitted to be used or operated between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. The licensing authority may fix time limit in the licence for the use of loudspeakers either for static or for mobile publicity purposes. Such time limit shall not exceed three hours per day for static loudspeaker licences and four hours per day for mobile loudspeaker licences. The first proviso to Rule 7 provides that the licensing authority may permit the use of static loudspeaker by organisers of conferences, seminars, religious congregations, sports meets etc., up to a maximum of 6 hours per day between the hours 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. The second proviso to Rule 7 provides that the licence for mobile publicity under Category 'C' of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 shall be issued only for one day at a time. Rule 8 provides that the licesing authority may refuse to issue a licence or cancel the licence issued under Rule 2 if the holder of such licence contravenes the provisions of any of these rules or the conditions subject to which the licence, is issued. Rule 9 provides for making of an application by every person desirous of obtaining a loudspeaker licence to the licensing authority and specifies the particulars to be mentioned therein. Rule 11 provides that the licensing authority may, for sufficient cause, refuse to issue a licence under these rules recording reasons in writing for such refusal. Rule 12 prescribes the rates of fees for the licence to be obtained under the rules. Rule 15 provides that a licence for the use of loudspeaker shall be issued in the form appended to these rules. The prescribed form of the licence is as follows:
"Office of the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
No. Adm.
Dated To Subject: Licence to use a loudspeaker in connection with the ..........
Reference : Your application dated.....
Permission is hereby granted under Rule 2 read with Rule 15 of the Hyderabad City Loudspeakers (Regulation of Use and Licensing) Rules, 1963, to use Loudspeaker for the purpose of...........
A Announcement in the Cities of Hyderabad and Secubderabad.
B Use single - Publicity phone at Premises connection with the .............. Static of on From 196 to 196 The from to Subject to the following conditions:--
1. Announcement should not be made while the vehicle fitted with the loudspeaker is in motion.
2. Announcement should be made by stopping the vehicle fitted with a loudspeaker at a considerable distance from the main road where there is no possibility of accidents or traffic congestion.
3. The instructions given by the Traffic Police Officer or the Traffic pointmen should be strictly adhered to.
4. Announcement should be made only according to the time limit fixed in the licence and such time limit should not exceed four hours per day.
5. No accouncement should be made on any day earlier than 9.30 a.m. and later than 5.30 p.m.
6. No annoucement should be made nor the apparatus used within a radius of 200 metres from -
(1) any place of worship.
(2) any Court house or public office or educational institution during the working hours.
(3) any hospital; or (4) any place which has been declared as a silent zone except with the previous consent in writing of the person or persons in the control or management of the premises.
7. There should be no playing of music, vocal or instrumental especially gramaphone recording for advertisement purposes.
8. The use of apparatus should not be continuous from morning till late in the night.
9. Permission for the use of loudspeaker at premises particularly in connection with private functions will be issued for a short duration of time which will not exceed three hours per day.
10. Permission to use a loudspeaker shall not be granted for more than three days at a time.
Provided that this condition shall not apply to the loudspeakers exempted under R. 14.
11. The licensing authority may refuse licence for the use of loudspeaker at premises or for mobile publicity assigning reasons thereto.
12. The licence shall be valid for the dates for which it has been issued.
13. Loudspeaker should be used only for the purpose specified in the licence.
N.B.--(a) The conditions specified in serial Nos. 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7 pertain exclusively to the licence issued for advertisement purposes while the conditions specified in serial Nos. 8, 9 and 13 pertain exclusively to the licence issued for the installation of the loudspeaker.
(b) If any of these conditions is contravened, the licence shall be liable to be cancelled and the licence-holder shall be liable to punishment of fine which may extend to one hundred rupees.
The receipt of Rs...... being the licence fee is hereby acknowledged.
Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to-
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Hyderabad.
2. The Circle Inspector of Police.
3. The Sub-Inspector of Police.
with the remarks that they may please see that the conditions are strictly adhered to by the applicant."
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that ex facie the impugned order is contrary to and is in violation of the aforesaid rules. He submitted that according to R. 7, no loudspeaker can be used or operated between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. only, and that there can be no prohibition against the use of loudspeakers at other times. He also submitted that the petitioners are not seeking to use a loudspeaker but they wanted to use only a megaphone of 10 watts and that there is no justification whatsoever for prohibiting the use of the same. The learned counsel referred to the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary with a view to bring out the distinction between the two. According to the said Dictionary, a loudspeaker is part of a radio, record-player etc., that changes electrical impulses into audible sounds whereas a megaphone is described as a funnel shaped device for speaking through that allows the voice to be heard 'at a distance. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decisions reported in Secretary, Ministry of I. & B, v. Cricket Asson., Bengal, and D. Anantha Prabhu v. Dist. Collector, Ernakulam, , in support of his contentions. In Secretary, Ministry of I.&B. v. Cricket Asson., Bengal, (supra), the Supreme Court, while summarising the law on the freedom of speech and expression under Art. 19(1)(a) as restricted by Art. 19(2) held as follows:
"The freedom of speech and expression includes right to acquire information and to disseminate it. Freedom of speech and expression is necessary, for self-expression which is an important means of free conscience and self-fulfillment. It enables people to contribute to debates of social and moral issues. It is the best way to find a truest model of anything, since it is only through it, that the widest possible range of ideas can circulate. It is the only vehicle of political discourse so essential to democracy. Equally important is the role it places in facilitating artistic and scholarly endeavours of all sorts. The right to communicate, therefore, includes right to communicate through any media that is available whether print or electronic or audiovisual such as advertisement, movie, article, speech etc. That is why freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of the press. The freedom of the press in terms includes right to circulate and also to determine the volume of such circulation. This freedom includes the freedom to communicate or circulate one's opinion without interference to as large a population in the country as well as abroad as is possible to reach.
This fundamental right can be limited only by reasonable restrictions under a law made for the purposes mentioned in Art. 19(2) of the Constitution.
The burden is on the authority to justify the restrictions. Public order is not the same thing as public safety and hence no restrictions can be placed on the right to freedom of speech and expression on the ground that public safety is endangered. Unlike in the American Constitution, limitation on fundamental rights are specifically spelt out under Art. 19(2) of our Constitution. Hence no restrictions can be placed on the right to freedom of speech and expression on grounds other than those specified under Art. 19(2)."
In D. .Anantha Prabhu v. Dist, Collector, Ernakulam, (supra), a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court, following a Division Bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court reported in Indulal v. State, and referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Himat Lal v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, ; Madhu Limaye v. D. M. Monghyr, ; Mahaboob Sheriff & Sons v. Mysore S. T. Authority, and several other judgments held that a total ban on the use of a mike, loudspeaker etc., at any time amounts to infringement of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, and quashed such a condition imposed by the order impugned in the said case.
10. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader, however, sought to justify the impugned order by contending that the petitioners are not entitled to a blanket permission or licence to canvass throughout the day at all places in the twin cities without any limitations, that the petitioners have no right to take out a publicity campaign with the use of mikes and cassettes on public streets because it is likely to cause disturbance or nuisance to the public order, that the roads are meant for movement of traffic and not for propaganda, that the petitioners cannot block the movement of traffic and thereby violate the rights of others, that the respondents have a duty to maintain the streets without any disturbance or obstruction to the traffic and the restrictions imposed are quite reasonable and they are not violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. In support of his contentions, the learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in K. Venu v. Director General of Police, , wherein a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court without much discussion expressed the view that he is not inclined to hold that the right to use loudspeaker is a fundamental right in itself on the ground that sound pollution is an accepted danger and indiscriminate use of loudspeakers cannot be permitted. The learned Judge, however, held that it is for the authority concerned to satisfy itself whether in a given situation a loudspeaker can be used or not.
11. The right claimed by the petitioners in the instant case consists of two parts. Firstly the petitioners want to undertake a mobile publicity campaign by taking out a procession of five persons along the streets all over the twin cities for a period of one month. Secondly they want to make use of a mike and audio-cassettes for the purpose of propagating the ideals and programmes of their party. It is, no doubt, true as contended by the learned Government Pleader, that the public streets and highways are primarily intended for free movement of traffic and that petitioners have no fundamental right to hold meetings or to lead processions on every public place or public street without any limitations. In Himat Lal v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, (supra), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with the right to take out processions or to hold public meetings on highways. After an exhaustive review of precedents, the Constitution Bench held that in India a citizen had, before the Constitution, a right to hold meetings on public streets subject to the control of the appropriate authority regarding the time and place of the meeting and subject to considerations of public order and that the Constitution makers made, it a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(b) and that the said right cannot be abridged or taken away by prohibiting assembly on every public street or public place and that the State can only make regulations in aid of the right of the assembly of each citizen and can only impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order.
12. In the impugned order no restriction is, however, placed on the movement of the petitioners along the streets and highways. The real grievance of the petitioners is only against the time limit fixed for the campaign and against the total ban imposed on the use of mike and audio-cassettes for the purpose of campaign. In Indulal v. State, (supra), a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court considered the extent and scope of the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and also considered the question of validity of analogous provisions of the Bombay Police Act and the rules made there under regulating the use of loudspeakers and microphones etc. In a well considered and well reasoned judgment, the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the said case held that the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) is not merely a right to express and propagate one's views but also includes in it the right to circulate one's views to others by all such means as are available to the citizen to make known those views and that a ban on the user of a loudspeaker or micro-phone which helps the citizen in circulating his views to, as large an audience as he can, will be prima facie an infringement of the fundamental right of the freedom of speech and expression unless the infringement is justified by clause (2) of Article 19. The Division Bench in the course of its judgment, observed that "when people try to take advantage of mechanical devices in the exercise of the right, conflicts of interest are bound to arise. If in the exercise of the right of free speech, all or a great number of citizens were to gather together at one spot and everyone of them were to make use of a loudspeaker, it is quite obvious that there would be a babble of noises and not only that none of them would be able to exercise the right of speech, but there may be clash between the individuals and groups; it may distract the pedestrians and motorists and cause a nuisance to the locality which may lead to a breach of peace. In order to prevent such a situation arising, it is obvious that some restrictions must be placed on the use of such mechanical devices so that the right may be properly and equitably exercised and the social conflicts arising out of the simultaneous user of a number of loudspeakers may be avoided or minimised. Therefore, though the right is a precious right, which requires to be very jealously guarded, if any restriction is placed on the exercise of the right, in order that the maximum use may be made of that right by the totality of the citizens and to avoid social conflicts, that restriction must be regarded to be reasonable and must be upheld. It follows from this that, if power is conferred upon the executive by the legislature for prevention of such conflicts, dislocations and distractions, the power must be regarded to be necessary to preserve public order. If proper safeguards are imposed which would ensure that the power is exercised in the interest of society as, a whole, without one section of the population being preferred at the cost of the other, then, it cannot be said that the power so conferred is an arbitrary power. However, at the same time, one must see that the power of imposing the restriction is not placed at the absolute disposal and to the unrestricted will of an executive officer, however highly placed the officer may be." The Division Bench ultimately upheld the provisions of the impugned Act and the Rules and dismissed the writ petition in that case.
13. In D. Anantha Prabhu v. Dist. Collector, Ernakulam, (supra), a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court, on a review of several judgments, Indian as well as foreign, has pointed out that there is a constitutional difference between reasonable regulation and arbitrary exclusion and held that a total ban of the use of loudspeakers is violative of the right under Article 19(I)(a). The learned Judge has referred to the decision of the Privy Council in Francis v. Chief of Police, 1973 (2) All ER 251 wherein the Privy Council has adverted to two conflicting views expressed by the U. S. Supreme Court regarding the use of loudspeakers, the first taking the view that loudspeakers are today indispensable instruments of effective public speech, and the sound track has become an accepted method of political' campaigning to reach the people and the other taking the view that modern devices for amplifying the range and volume of the voice or its recording afford easy, too easy, opportunities for aural aggression and, if uncontrolled, the result is intrusion into cherished privacy. These two conflicting considerations have to be reconciled in arriving at a proper conclusion on the question. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court and the learned Judge of the Kerala High Court in the above two judgments. In the present case, inasmuch as the petitioners have not questioned the validity of the Hyderabad City Police Act or the Rules made thereunder, it only remains to be seen whether the impugned order is in accordance with the said Act and the Rules or not.
14. It is clear from a reading of Section 22 of the Hyderabad City Policy Act and the Hyderabad City Loudspeakers (Regulation of Use and Licensing) Rules, 1963 that there cannot be a blanket ban against the use of loudspeakers or mikes at all times and in alt places. It is clear from Rule 3 of the Hyderabad City Loudspeakers (Regulation of Use and Licensing) Rules, 1963, that it is permissible to use one loudspeaker for the purpose of mobile publicity under Category 'C' subject to the restrictions enumerated therein. Rule 7 of the said Rules prohibits the user of a loudspeaker between llp.m. and 6 a.m. only. The said rule, however, empowers the licensing authority to fix a time limit in the licence for the use of loudspeakers either for static or for mobile publicity purposes. Such time limit shall not exceed three hours per day for static loudspeaker licences and four hours per day for mobile loudspeaker licences. Rule 11 provides that licensing authority may for sufficient cause refuse to issue licence under these rules recording reasons in writing for such refusal. In the impugned order no reasons whatsoever have been assigned for prohibiting altogether the use of any make or audio-cassettes. I do not, therefore, find any justification whatsoever for the said restrictions imposed in the impugned order. Likewise the fixation of time limit for the campaign between 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. only also appears to be contrary to the said rules as according to Condition No. 5 of the prescribed form of licence as per Rule 15 of the Rules, no announcement should be made on any day earlier than 9.30a.m. and later than 5.30 p.m. I do not, however, find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a mike is distinct and different from a loudspeaker and that no licence or permission is required for using a mike. Whatever might be the difference between the two, both are appliances or contraptions for amplifying the sound and as such 1 am of the opinion that the rules are applicable to mikes also.
15. For all the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable as it is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules mentioned above. Accordingly the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. As the campaign period applied for has already expired, it will be open to the petitioners to make a fresh application to the second respondent who shall pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above.
16. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Petition allowed.