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.

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