Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Unnikrishnan vs The District Collector on 10 October, 2017

Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque

Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT:

      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

   TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/18TH ASWINA, 1939

                          WP(C).No. 30099 of 2009 (F)
                               ----------------------------
   PETITIONER :
   ------------------

             UNNIKRISHNAN, PERUMBILLIL VYSAKH,
             MAPRANAM, MADAYIKONAM, TRISSUR.

             BY ADVS.SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
                         SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR)
                         SRI.V.K.RAJANANDAN
                         SRI.P.S.SIDHAN

   RESPONDENTS :
   ----------------------

   1.       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.

   2.       THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
             THRISSUR.

   3.       THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
             THRISSUR.

   4.       THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT OFFICER,
             POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR - 68002.

   5.        VARIKKASSERI KSHETRA SAMRAKSHANA
             SAMITHI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
             V.C.SOMAN, VARIKKATTIL VEEDU, MAPRANAM,,
            MADAYIKONAM P.O., THRISSUR.

             R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. PRIYA SHANAVAS
             R4 BYSRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS, SC,
                  BY SRI. T.NAVEEN SC,

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
     ON 10-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
     THE FOLLOWING:

bp

WP(C).No. 30099 of 2009 (F)
---------------------------------------


                                         APPENDIX


PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
-----------------------------------

P1:                COPY OF THE NOISE POLLUTION (REGULATION AND CONTROL)
                   RULE 2000 PUBLISHED AS PER NOTIFICATION DT 14/2/2000.

P2;                COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT 29/7/2002 PUBLISHED BYT HE
                   HOME DEPARTMENT.

P3:                COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT 20/4/2002 ISSUED BYT HE
                   STATE GOVERNMENT.

P4:                COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE HORN TYPE
                   SPEAKERS FITTED INT HE TEMPLE.

P5:                COPY OF THE PETITION DT 10/4/2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
                   R4 AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD INSPECT OF THE SAME.

P6:                COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE MOTHER OF THE
                   PETITIONER ON 6/7/2009 BEFORE THE R1.

P7:                COPY OF THE PETITION DT 31/7/2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
                   R1.


RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :
-------------------------------------

EXT.R4(a):         COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/TSR/L/69/2009 DT 15/1/2010.


                                                      //TRUE COPY//


                                                      P.A. TO JUDGE

bp



                 A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

                ------------------------------------

                   W.P. (C) No.30099 of 2009

                ------------------------------------

            Dated this the 10th day of October, 2017


                         J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondents 1 to 4 to prevent the 5th respondent from using horn type speakers and loud speaker systems to break the limits prescribed as per the rules.
ii. Declare that the use of loud speaker systems by the 5th respondent is against the rules and that it violates the constitutional rights of the petitioner. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 4th respondent to consider Exhibit P5 petition and to pass appropriate orders.

2. By interim order dated 23.10.2009, this Court directed the Pollution Control Board to conduct inspection and report. The report filed before this Court would show that the sound level of the loud speaker working was above the permissible limit within the residential area.

W.P.(C) No.30099/2009 2

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of restraining the 5th respondent from using the loud speaker beyond the permissible limit. The 4th respondent shall give necessary instructions to the 5th respondent to limit the use of loud speaker within the permissible limit. The 5th respondent also should obtain necessary permission from the 3rd respondent for the use of the loud speaker. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed by the 4th respondent indicating the limit of noise within a period of four weeks. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent shall permit the 5th respondent to use loud speaker within such limit as granted by the 4th respondent. Certainly, on failure to adhere with the direction of the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent shall take necessary action to prevent the 5th respondent from using loud speaker.

Sd/-

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE smp