1. Is the addition of Cl.(3) to R.5 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 as made vide notification dated October 11, 2002 illegal? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the prescribed procedure has not been followed. The power is capable of being abused. Thus, the impugned notification, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P2, deserves to be annulled. The claim as made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the counsel for the respondents.

3. The statutory provisions may be noticed.

4. The Central Government had notified the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. A copy of these Rules has been produced as Ext.P1. Under R.3(3), the State Government "was empowered" to take measures for abatement of noise including noise emanating from vehicular movements and ensure that the existing noise levels do not exceed the ambient air quality standards specified under the rules. R.5 as framed by the Central Government provides as under:

"5. Restrictions on the use of loudspeakers/ public address system.?

(1) A loudspeaker or a public address s