1. Writ petition for removal of L.C.D. resulted in High Court directions banning DJs under Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, affecting non-parties. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 366
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vineet Saran, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
SACHIN KASHYAP & ORS. – Appellants
VERSUS
SUSHIL CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA & ORS. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No (s). 2691 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No(s). 24806 of 2019)
Decided on : 15-07-2021
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Writ Petition having been filed for a particular cause and with a particular prayer cannot be expanded to cover within its ambit all issues which may be of general or public importance without there being any pleadings or prayer with regard to a particular issue.
Writ Petition having been filed for a particular cause and with a particular prayer cannot be expanded to cover within its ambit all issues which may be of general or public importance without there being any pleadings or prayer with regard to a particular issue.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Article 19(1)(g) - Right to Practice Any Profession, Trade or Business
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 – Writ Petition – Scope and ambit – Writ Petition having been filed for a particular cause and with a particular prayer cannot be expanded to cover within its ambit all issues which may be of general or public importance without there being any pleadings or prayer with regard to a particular issue – Since there were neither pleadings nor any prayer with regard to playing of music or DJ in public place, no such directions prohibiting DJ could have been issued, especially in a private litigation which was not in nature of Public Interest Litigation – Prior to passing any such order of public importance, affected parties should be impleaded, at least in a representative capacity, which is not done in present case – Appellants are affected parties who were neither impleaded nor given any opportunity to present their case – Impugned direction of High Court set aside. (Paras 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is filed by non-parties in the Writ Petition who were, though directly affected, neither impleaded before High Court as parties nor was there any prayer for issuance of such directions by which they are aggrieved.
Findings of Court:
While quashing the direction no.(iii) in the impugned judgment of the High Court, we make it clear that the appellants or any other such persons may be permitted to play the music/DJ only in accordance with law and after obtaining the requisite license/permission from concerned authorities.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Parties :S.R. Singh, Ankur Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Krishna Kumar Yadav, Pramod Kumar, Jabar Singh, Arvind Yadav, Dr. Amardeep Gaur, M/S. V. Maheshwari & Co., Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Ramjee Pandey, Raghvendra Shukla, Dhananjaya Kumar Tyagi, Satbir Singh Pillania, Sandiv Kalia, Ms. Reena Rao, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Himanshu Tyagi, Amit Wadhwa, Shailesh Singh, Pramod Tiwari, Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Vivek Sarin, Satish C. Kaushik, Aakarshan Aditya, Dushyant Parashar, Dinesh Pandey, Manu Parashar, Amrendra Kumar Singh, Anand Mishra, Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi, Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Ms. Garima Prasad, Pradeep Misra, Suraj Singh, Satish Pandey, Abdul Qadir, Gulfeshan Javed, Gulshan Jahan, Ninanda Nair, Arvind Varma, Parul Shukla, Ajitesh Soni, E. C. Agrawala, Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Ms. Parul Shukla, Ajitesh Soni, E. C. Agrawala, Advocates
For the Parties :S.R. Singh, Ankur Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Krishna Kumar Yadav, Pramod Kumar, Jabar Singh, Arvind Yadav, Dr. Amardeep Gaur, M/S. V. Maheshwari & Co., Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Ramjee Pandey, Raghvendra Shukla, Dhananjaya Kumar Tyagi, Satbir Singh Pillania, Sandiv Kalia, Ms. Reena Rao, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Himanshu Tyagi, Amit Wadhwa, Shailesh Singh, Pramod Tiwari, Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Vivek Sarin, Satish C. Kaushik, Aakarshan Aditya, Dushyant Parashar, Dinesh Pandey, Manu Parashar, Amrendra Kumar Singh, Anand Mishra, Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi, Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Ms. Garima Prasad, Pradeep Misra, Suraj Singh, Satish Pandey, Abdul Qadir, Gulfeshan Javed, Gulshan Jahan, Ninanda Nair, Arvind Varma, Parul Shukla, Ajitesh Soni, E. C. Agrawala, Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Ms. Parul Shukla, Ajitesh Soni, E. C. Agrawala, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claim the DJ ban was outside the petition's scope and violates Article 19(1)(g); respondents argue Article 226 allows expanding the petition's scope. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Directions on issues lacking pleadings or prayers are unjustified, especially in private litigation, as affected parties must be impleaded before passing orders of public importance. (Para 14 )
4. A writ petition cannot be expanded to cover general public importance issues without relevant pleadings or prayers, particularly in private litigation where affected parties are not impleaded. (Para 14 )
5. High Court direction banning DJs quashed; music/DJ permitted only in accordance with law and upon obtaining requisite licenses. (Para 15 )
6. Can a court expand the scope of a writ petition to include issues of general public importance not mentioned in the pleadings?
No. A writ petition filed for a particular cause and prayer cannot be expanded to cover general or public importance issues without corresponding pleadings or prayers, especially in private litigation. (Para 14 )
7. Is it permissible to issue directions affecting third parties in a private writ petition without impleading them?
No. Before passing orders of public importance that affect specific parties, those affected parties should be impleaded, at least in a representative capacity, to provide them an opportunity to present their case. (Para 14 )
8. What is the legal requirement for playing music or DJs in public places regarding noise regulation?
Playing music or DJs in public places is permitted only in accordance with the law and after obtaining the requisite license or permission from the concerned authorities. (Para 15 )
ORDER
1. Permission to file Special Leave Petition(s) is granted.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Intervention/impleadment applications stand allowed.
4. Interlocutory Application No. 167927 of 2019 for deleting the proforma respondents No. 4 to 11 from the array of the parties stands allowed at the risk of the appellants.
Leave granted.
5. For the sake of convenience, we are taking up Civil Appeal No. 2691 of 2021 arising out of SLP(C) No.24806/2019 as lead matter and disposing of all the connected appeals by this common order.
6. This appeal is filed by non-parties in the Writ Petition who were, though directly affected, neither impleaded before the High Court as parties nor was there any prayer for issuance of such directions by which they are aggrieved.
7. Brief facts of this case are that respondents No. 1 and 2 had filed a Writ Petition before the High Court with the following prayers:-
"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authority to remove L.C.D. from Hashimpur Chauraha, Prayagraj immediately.
(ii) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the nature as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(iii) to award cost of writ petition to the petitioners."
8. While considering the said prayers, the High Court issued 9 directions in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment dated 20.08.2019.
9. The appellants are aggrieved by direction No. (iii) issued by the High Court, which is extracted below:-
"(iii) Under the Rules, 2000, no permission for DJ shall be granted by the authority for the reason that noise generated by DJ is unpleasant and obnoxious level. Even if they are operated at the minimum level of the sound it is beyond permissible limits under the Schedule of the Rules, 2000. A DJ is made up of several amplifiers and joint sound emitted by them is more than thousand dB (A). They are serious threat to human health particularly children, senior citizens and patients admitted in the hospitals."
10. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in the entire Writ Petition there were neither any pleadings with regard to the noise generated by the DJ being unpleasant and of obnoxious level nor there was any such prayer made in the Writ Petition. The relief granted by the High Court with regard to the removal of L.C.D. from the particular area in question, which was a separate issue, and appellants have no grievance regarding the same. The appellants are only aggrieved by the direction no.(iii) issued in relation to a matter which was not an issue before the High Court.
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that they have a right to play music in public places only after obtaining license from the District Authority under the relevant Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. It is contended that by imposing such restriction as contained in the aforesaid direction no.(iii) issued by the High Court, the livelihood of the appellants is affected and hit by Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents No. 1 and 2 (Writ Petitioners before the High Court) has submitted that though there was no such prayer with regard to the playing of music (DJ) in public place, and the Writ Petition was limited only to playing of L.C.D. in the particular area, yet such directions could have been issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by expanding the scope of the Writ Petition.
13. Ms. Garima Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh and Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi, learned counsel appearing for the Allahabad Development Authority have submitted that they are duty bound to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, and in compliance of the aforesaid direction no.(iii), the State Government as well as the Allahabad Development Authority
![Jaago Nehru Nagar Residents Welfare Association ] Having Its Office At Shop No.5, Alaknanda Chs Ltd. Vs The Commissioner Of Police ] Having Office At Crawford Market - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 157](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Bombay_1.png)
