Madras High Court
A.Velkumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 April, 2019
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.04.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.7756 of 2018
A.Velkumar
... Petitioner
Vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government
Public Health and Family Welfare (F2) Department,
Chennai - 9.
2.Roman Catholic Church,
rep. by Mr.Remi,
3.The District Environment Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Thoothukudi.
4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli.
5.The District Collector,
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
6.The Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
7.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District.
8.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.
9.The Tahsildar,
Thiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
10.The Inspector of Police,
Alwar Thirunageri Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent 4 to 9
to forthwith to remove the Cone Speaker / Loud Speaker affixed in
the 10th respondent Church Tower at 1/73, South Street,
Themankulam Village, Thirukalur Post, Thiruchendur Taluk,
Thoothukudi District and also consequently, direct the 10th
respondent to not to install any other speakers to announce Time
Bible Phrases etc.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvaradhan
For Respondents : Mr.V.Anand
Government Advocate
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 9.
2.The writ petitioner is a permanent resident of Themankulam Village, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi http://www.judis.nic.inDistrict. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the 3 tenth respondent has installed the petition mentioned Cone Speaker/loudspeaker and that, it is a clear violation of the norms laid down by the authorities.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the order dated 05.02.2018 passed by this Court in W.P(MD).No.23469 of 2017. The Hon'ble Judge while disposing of the said writ petition has given the following directions :-
“.......
15.However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind that the same problem is prevailing in all over the State as submitted by some of the lawyers in the open Court, this Court is inclined to issue certain directions/guidelines to regulate the noise pollution in public/other places and there are:
(i) The State shall strictly implement the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 forthwith and issue necessary/appropriate directions/guidelines to the authorities/police officers concerned to see to it that noise pollution is controlled;
(ii) The State shall instruct all the authorities to take appropriate action against the users of cone speakers/loudspeakers in public places and/or in http://www.judis.nic.in religious places in violation of the provisions of the 4 Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and ensure that the usage of cone speakers are curtailed and the usage of any other sound systems would be within the permitted parameters;
(iii) The use of cone speakers/loudspeakers in public places shall be banned/restricted forthwith in the interest of general public and more particularly, the children and aged persons;
(iv) The awareness campaigns shall be conducted among the public about the ill-effects of cone speakers/loudspeakers in order to curb the menace of noise pollution;
(v) Any violation in complying with the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, be taken note of by the authorities concerned and appropriate action be initiated against the persons concerned in accordance with law and the instruments used for such violation be seized and confiscated immediately;
(vi)Those, who are conducting the public meetings, shall also scrupulously follow the directions issued in this order, while using the sound systems; and
(vii)The tenth respondent shall communicate this order to all the District Collectors, who inturn, shall intimate the same to all the subordinate officers for http://www.judis.nic.in compliance forthwith.” 5
4.In the case on hand the writ petitioner has already given representations dated 15.02.2018 and 27.08.2018. The sixth respondent shall dispose of the said representation on merits and in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the tenth respondent. Such an order shall be passed by the sixth respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The official respondents shall take note of the directions set out in the aforesaid order passed by this Court.
5.The Writ Petition is disposed of on these terms. No costs.
29.04.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rmk
Note : Main bundle has not been received from the writ section to the Court.
To
1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Public Health and Family Welfare (F2) Department, Chennai – 9.
2.The District Environment Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Thoothukudi.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmk
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli.
4.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
5.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
6.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District.
7.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.
8.The Tahsildar, Thiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.
9.The Inspector of Police, Alwar Thirunageri Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
10.The Section Officer, Writ Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
W.P.(MD)No.7756 of 2018
29.04.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in