Ramachandran Nair, J.

The Review Petitioners in all these cases were not parties in the common judgment in W.A. No. 3125 of 2001 and O.P. No. 18197 of 2001 sought to be reviewed by them. They have filed petitions for leave to file Review Petitions, and the same were allowed by us. We have heard counsel for the review petitioners and also counsel for the respondents, including the Government Pleader.

2. The petitioners are said to be engaged in the business of professional advertisement through loudspeakers. According to them, ever since the judgment in the Writ Appeal and the connected O.P., referred to above, by this Court, and a subsequent clarification in C.M.P. No. 55608 of 2001 dated 13.11.2001, the police authorities are not permitting them to operate loud speakers for advertisement and commercial use because among other things in the impugned judgment this Court held that pending implementation of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, hereinafter called the "Rules". Whereunder the State Government has to identify various zones in terms of Rule 3, the directions of the Deputy Inspector General of Police vide letter No. B1/8670/2000TR dated 22.7.2000 should be followed. The following are the directions issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police pursuant to the judgment of this Court in O.P. Nos. 11016 and 26161 of 1998 :

1. Public address system and loudspeakers should not be used at night between 9 P.M. to 6 A.M. except in closed.

2. Loudspeakers should be directed at the audience and not away from the audience.

3. Loudspeakers should not be allowed for advertisement and commercial activities.

4. The permitted strength of the power of the amplifier should be just adequate to cover the audience.

It appears from among the restrictions imposed, the petitioners are aggrieved by the third restriction, which prohibits use of loudspeakers for advertisement and commercial activities. Since the impugned judgment, the police authorities do not grant any permission to the petitioners to operate loudspeakers for advertisement and other commercial purposes.

3. The petitioners have produced common judgment of this Court in O.P. Nos. 19310 and 17851 of 2001 dated 3.7.2001 and the judgment in O.P. No. 23802 of 2001 dated 13.8.2001 whereunder this Court had directed the police authorities to consider the petitioners' application for permission to use loudspeakers for advertisement and commercial purposes. In fact the latter judgment is issued following the former judgment. We have gone through the judgments and we find that all what this Court has directed is that the petitioners application for use of loudspeakers for advertisement and commercial purposes has to be considered by the concerned authorities in the light of the Rules. However, this Court never had occasion to consider whether the use of loudspeakers for commercial and advertisement purpose is consistent with the very object of prevention of noise pollution sought to be achieved under the Rules. In fact the judgment in W.A. No. 3125 of 2001 is against the judgment in O.P. No. 20982 of 2001 of the learned single Judge of this Court wherein the learned single Judge held that the directions of the Deputy Inspector General of Police including prohibition against use of loudspeakers for commercial and advertisement purposes, did not militate against the Rules. In other words, the prohibition issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police only advances the object of controlling noise pollution by preventing the use of loudspeakers for commercial and advertisement purposes. However , while deciding the Writ Appeal and the connected O.P. this Court did not grant permission to the petitioners to operate loudspeakers for commercial and advertisement purposes by reversing the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, because it was felt that prima facie the restrictions imposed in the said order were consistent with the Rules. In any case, if at a