Bombay High Court
Sayyad Wahed Sayyed Amir vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 9 September, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:24238-DB
2-wp-1143-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
2 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1143 OF 2025
SAYYAD WAHED SAYYED AMIR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. M. V. Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. S. Patil, APP for Respondents/State.
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATE : 09 SEPTEMBER 2025
ORDER :
. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner at length. The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus, certiorari or direction for setting aside the notice dated 21.07.2025 and for direction to the respondents to follow the procedure established by the statutes i.e. the Maharashtra Police Act and the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. The second prayer for issuing of writ is to restrain the police authorities from taking any coercive action against the Masjeed's, Dargahas, Temples, Buddha Vihara's and religious places of worships and its Trustees, Managers and Mutawallies for removal of loud speaker and restraining the respondents police authorities from issuing notices without following due procedure. The third prayer is for issuing of writ for directions to all [1] 2-wp-1143-2025.odt the respondents to procure noise measuring machines/instruments as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Noise Pollution (V),IN RE, (2005) 5 SCC 733., which are in conformity with the bureau of Indian Standard and to train personnel in dealing with noise pollution as per the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2. Upon query, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a mosque authority, but he is from the community where on the mosques and Dargahas the loud speakers are installed and since the petitioner is engaged in the social causes, he has made those prayers in respect of all the communities not only of his, but also in respect of temples and Buddha Vihar's. The only intention behind is that since the procedure that has been laid down has not been followed, the petitioner want that with the directions of this Court they should be followed. Here, in this case, the petitioner is not coming under the Public Interest Litigation, but he has filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and want to agitate the point on the basis of his alleged fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 etc. of the Constitution of India.
3. Here, we would like to further observe that the petitioner has not filed the petition for Contempt of Courts Act, if the procedure is not followed. Under such circumstance, when he is agitating his fundamental [2] 2-wp-1143-2025.odt rights which also come with the responsibilities to be observed by any citizen and to respect the fundamental rights of the other citizens, we were of the opinion that for the prayers, the petitioner has no locus. Then the learned Advocate for the petitioner prays for converting the petition into the Public Interest Litigation. We allow the said prayer.
4. Petitioner to take up the steps and if any amendment is desired, then it be carried out within a period of one week. The matter thereafter be registered as Public Interest Litigation and be placed before the appropriate Bench.
5. After registration of the Public Interest Litigation, the Criminal Writ Petition No.1143 of 2025 should be treated as disposed of.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
scm
[3]