Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 10. Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the third respondent. In view of the order that is going to be passed, notice to the other respondents is dispensed with.

4. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

5. According to the petitioner, the petitioner Sangam is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and the members of the petitioner Sangam are residing in the said area. Meanwhile, the ninth respondent - Church without obtaining proper permission from the competent authority, constructed a prayer hall and further, is using banned horn type long handle loudspeakers and thereby, created noise pollution in that locality. Due to the act of the ninth respondent, the residents therein are suffering a lot because of noise pollution caused by him.

6. Further, the ninth respondent used the horn speakers as against the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and caused hindrance to the students and patients in that area. Therefore, the petitioner Sangam made a representation to the respondents to initiate appropriate action against the ninth respondent, but no action is forthcoming so far. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the ninth respondent has conducted the prayers all along the day by using the banned horn type long handle loudspeakers with high volume and he also erected loudspeakers in eight directions permanently. Despite several restrictions were imposed on the use of loudspeakers, the ninth respondent having disregard to those rules framed under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, violated the same and caused noise pollution to the extent possible and thus, the petitioner Sangam made several representations to the authorities concerned seeking appropriate action against the use of loudspeakers by the ninth respondent, however, their request did not see the light of the day so far and hence, he prayed for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 7 to take appropriate action against the ninth respondent for the use of the banned loudspeakers.

9.2. The impact of noise pollution caused by cone speakers and its deleterious effect on public has been emphasised by K.P.Sivasubramaniam,J., in the case of Church of God (Full Gospel) Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu in W.P.No.34449 of 2002 dated 28.2.2003. Paragraph 20 of the said judgment, which is relevant to re-emphasis for the present scenario, is set out hereunder:
"20. While parting with this case, I am also inclined to caution the petitioners as well as such religious enthusiasts/ fundamentalists, to practice their respective faith in a cultured way and not to resort to aggressive or unfair methods and resorting to a method of worship which is inhuman. God, to whichever religion He belongs to, is said to be present everywhere and does not require a blaring and deafening amplifier to hear the prayer of his devotees. The nature of evil and adverse effects which noise pollution causes to the children, aged, sickly, pregnant women and even normal individuals and how it disturbs the student community etc., have been repeatedly emphasised with scientific facts and figures, any number of times in newspapers, magazines, health journals and other media. Whether any individual has a legal or fundamental right to affect the body and mind of another person has been dealt with in detail by the Division Bench in Apparao's case and by the Supreme Court in the very appeal by the petitioner and there is no need to repeat them. Suffice it to say that religious faith existed and flourished in the past during several centuries in a better manner without the aid of amplifiers or other gadjets which have come into being only during the past few years. Belief in religion is and should remain a private and personal affair. When it crosses the four walls of the house or the place of worship and becomes a public issue, it is the singular most factor and root cause for all the violence, extremism, terrorism and strife we are now witnessing, national and international. The amplifiers probably signify the growing trend of intolerance between different groups. Religion is not a trade requiring advertisement by amplifiers. It is a pity that the police as well as the Pollution Control authorities are yet to strictly implement the rules and regulations in spite of repeated directions by the Court and the Government. There is no impediment to enforce them provided the enforcement is carried out impartially and uniformly. Marriage halls also have become noisy with music parties forcing the invitees to run away at the earliest. Music and melody which should be soothening, instead make the audience frightened and terror stricken. It is paradoxical to claim that we are becoming more and more civilised and at the same time we indulge in such acts which are most uncivilised. Even animals run away from noisy areas. Not only animals in forests but also in zoos are protected from noise pollution because they cannot survive in noisy atmosphere. Motorists passing through the forest and protected areas are warned against using the horn and the visitors to the zoo are directed to pass through silently. Why should we human beings reduce ourselves to less than animals, is the question which the petitioners and their counterparts in other religions should address themselves."

11. Admittedly, the ninth respondent is the Parish Priest of Infant Jesus Shrine, R.K.Puram, Kattur, Tiruchirappalli - 620 019. It is the primordial submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the ninth respondent is using the cone speakers/loud speakers during prayers and thereby, causing noise pollution in that area and thus, the residents therein are made to undergo the untold menace. Hence, the petitioner made several complaints/representations to the authorities concerned for initiating appropriate action against the ninth respondent and to remove the loudspeakers therein. Finding no response, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.