Kerala High Court
Kannanari Abdul Majeed vs District Sueperintendent Of Police on 22 April, 2013
Author: A.M.Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
FRIDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/30TH JYAISHTA, 1936
WP(C).No. 7849 of 2013 (E)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
KANNANARI ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY,KUMMINIPARAMBU VEEDU,
PALLIKKAL VILLAGE, KARIPPOR AMSOM DESOM,
TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY
SMT. S.SEENA
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. DISTRICT SUEPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505, MALAPPURAM.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KARIPOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -676 552.
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDOTTI - 673 638.
4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM-676 505.
5. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
DISTRICT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM P O, MALAPPURAM-676 505.
7. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
(KERALA STATE POLICE CHIEF)POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
Kss ..2/-
..2....
WPC.NO.7849/2013 (E)
8. KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,WAKF BOARD OFFICE,
KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.
9. CHOLAMADU JAMATH,
KUMMINI PARAMBU(RUNBY KHIDMATHUL ISLAM SANGHAM)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
M.K. MOHAMMED KUTTY, S/O.ABDULLAKUTTY,
AZHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, KUMMINIPARAMBU P O , KONDOTTI,
MALAPPURAM-673 638.
10. NOWFEL SAQAFI,
S/O.KOZHIKODAN MUHAMMED MUSLIAR,
KHADEEBH & MUDAREES,
CHOLAMADU JAMATH,
(RUNBY KHIDMATH ISLAM SANGHAM)
P.O.KUMMINI PARAMBU,
KONDOTTI, MALAPURAM DISTRICT - 673 638.
11. MUTHALIB MUSALIAR,
SECRETARY, ANSARUTHWALABA SANGAM, (ATS)CHOLAMAD DARS,
CHOLAMADU MUSLIM JAMATH,
(RUNBY KHIDMATHUL ISLAM SANGHAM)KUMMINI PARAMBU P O,
KONDOTTI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -673 638.
12. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
MALAPPURAM CIVIL STATION,
MALAPPURAM - 673 506.
R1 TO R5,R7 & R12 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVEENDRAN
R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SC
R8 BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA,SC
R9 TO R11 BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 20-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
WP(C).No. 7849 of 2013 (E)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF RATION CARD.
EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE ROOF THE MASJID
BUILDING AND THE INSTALLATION OF LOUDSPEAKER.
EXT.P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
9TH RESPONDENT ON 1/10/2012.
EXT.P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT 22 /2/2013.
EXT.P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE IST RESPONDENT ON 22/2/2013.
EXT.P5(A):-TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD.
22/2/2013.
EXT.P6:-TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD 11/3/2013.
EXT.P6(A):-TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ON 11/3/2013.
EXT.P7:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FROM THE 6TH RESPONDENT DTD 12/3/2013.
EXT.P8:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF
THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P9:-TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD 22/2/2013.
EXT.P10:-TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT OF HINDU DAILY DTD 10/2/2013.
EXT.P11:-TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT OF MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD
6/1/2013.
EXT.P12:-TRUE COPY OF THE WALL POSTER PUBLISHED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT
INVITING THE PEOPLE FUNCTION CONDUCED ON 28/2/2013.
EXT.P13:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD 8/10/2012
IN ACONNECTED WPC NO. 468/2012.
EXT.P14:-TRUE COPY OF THE ANOTHER COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DTD 12/3/2013.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
------------------------------------------
EXT.R9(A): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION AND THE REFUSAL OF PERMISSION
DATED 22/04/2013.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.7849 of 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2014
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges the action of 9th respondent in using loud speaker, amplified mike systems etc. on the allegation that the same is causing noise pollution. That apart it is contended that the addressing system is being used during the meetings are being conducted inside the premises of the mosque. In fact, when daily prayers are conducted there is a system of using sound system. Whatever that might be, usage of sound system can be done only with due permission from the statutory authorities including police. If the party respondents have to conduct any function inside the mosque using the sound system, necessary permission has to be obtained, in addition to the permission for using the same at the time of daily prayers. Under such W.P.(C) No.7849/2013 2 circumstance, I am of the view that the Writ Petition can be disposed of as under.
i) 4th respondent shall ensure that the 9th respondent is using the sound systems for the purpose of prayers or meetings in the mosque only with due permission from the authority.
ii) If the petitioners have any complaint regarding the noise level on such use of sound systems mikes or amplifiers they are at liberty to approach 6th respondent with a complaint, who shall take into consideration the level of noise in the area and issue appropriate directions which shall be complied by 9th respondent as well.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE vdv