Karnataka High Court
Indian Public School vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2020
Author: P.B.Bajanthri
Bench: P.B. Bajanthri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI
WRIT PETITION NO.36211/2013 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
INDIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL
NO 9/3, 1ST FLOOR, TEMPLE CROSS ROAD
SULTHANPALYA POST, R.T. NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 032
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
SRI S. RAJU
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O LATE SUBRAYA SOMAYAJI .
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
HOME DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI ROAD
BANGALORE-560 045
BY ITS SECRETAR.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 010.
3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
D.J. HALLI POLICE STATION
BANGALORE-560 045.
2
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
REGIONAL OFFICE,
BANGALORE CITY EAST
'NISARGA BHAVAN', 3RD FLOOR,
THIMMAIAH ROAD, 7TH 'D' CROSS
SHIVAJINAGAR, OPP. PUSHPANJALI THEATRE
BANGALORE-560 010.
5. MADEENA MASJID
BETWEEN 12TH AND 13TH CROSS
KANAKANAGAR, BANGALORE-32
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V. SREENIDHI, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI D. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
ENDORSEMENT AT ANNEXURE-B DATED 21.7.2012 AND
ENDORSEMENT AT ANNEXURE-F DATED 26.6.2013 BOTH
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
a) Quash Endorsement at Annexure-B bearing No.DJH/PS/DR A/54/12 dated 21-07-2012 and endorsement at Annexure-F bearing No.DJH/PS/PT/05/2013 dated 26-6-2013, both issued by Respondent No.3 by issue of 3 a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction as the case may be;
b) Direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to take steps/action against Respondent No.5 for causing noise pollution by violating the provisions of the Environment Protection Act and Rules by issue of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction as the case may be;
c) Direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to restrain Respondent No.5 from causing noise pollution and to ensure that the sound emitted by Respondent No.5 is within permissible limits prescribed under the Act and Rules by issue of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction as the case may be;
d) Direct Respondents 1 to 3 to remove the illegal and unauthorized loud speakers installed by the Respondent No.5 on top of the building by issue of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction as the case may be;
e) Grant such other relief's that this Hon'ble
Court deems fit to grant in the
circumstances of the case."
2. Grievance of the petitioner is redressed as it is evident from para 10 of the affidavit dated 21.11.2020 filed by one Mr. N.N. Keshavamurthy Police 4 Inspector, Devarajeevanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru. Para 10 reads as under:
"10. I humbly submit that on 12-11-2020 the President Sri Basheer Ahmed and the member Sri Farooque E Ajam of Madeena Masjid have appeared in the Police Station and recorded their statement. The President of the Masjid Madeena and Sri Farooque-E-Ajam in their statement have stated that one loud speaker has been used 5 time in a day while performing prayer and they don't know the volume of sound emanating from the loud speaker and further stated that since the writ petition is filed in this regard, they will use the loud speaker after obtaining permission from the concerned authority. Copies of statements are enclosed herewith as Annexure-R6 and R7 respectively. Consequently, on 13-11-2020, I, along with the staff went to the Masjid Madeena and got removed the loud speaker fixed on the tower of Masjid. At present, no loud speaker has been fixed on the tower of Masjid. Copy of Mahazar is enclosed as 5 Annexure-R8 and photographs taken are enclosed herewith as Annexure-R9
3. At this juncture, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that with a malafide intention petitioner has presented this petition. Respondent No.5 cannot contend that present petition is filed with a malafide intention. In fact Apex Court had issued general direction to each and every state to reduce the volume of sound emanating from the loud speaker.
That apart in-action of the Police Authorities in not taking action on the petitioner's grievance for the last 5 years till this day is arbitrary and violation of Apex Court directions.
4. On the interim direction of this Court, respondents have proceeded to take action as is evident from para 10 of the affidavit dated 21.11.2020.
5. In view of the aforesaid development in the matter, the present petition do not survive for 6 consideration petitioner is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional police station, in the event of 5th respondent violating any of the general direction issued by the Apex Court. In such an event, jurisdictional Police is hereby directed to redress petitioner's grievance in future at the earliest in terms of Apex Court directions.
Sd/-
JUDGE HR