SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Mad) 203

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SRINIVASAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
M.S. Appa Rao
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu by its Secretaryk. Home Department, Fort St. George, Madras & Others
Writ Petition Nos. 12165 of 1985, 12629 of 1985 & 20444 of 1992
Decided On :Decided on : 15-02-1995

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:C. Ramakrishnan for K.P. Sivasubramanian, Ms. Kavitha for G. Anbumani. Sriram Panchu, Advocates.
For the Respondents: V. Raghupathy, Additonal Government Pleader.

The Court has the power to issue directions to the Government to ensure strict enforcement of statutory rules and Government Orders.

Headnote:

NOISE POLLUTION - Loudspeakers and Air Horns - Regulation - Guidelines - Enforcement - Directions to Government.

Fact of the Case:

Writ petitions were filed seeking directions to the State Government to impose strict conditions for obtaining a license for the use of loudspeakers and air horns and to ensure that the conditions are not violated. The petitioners also sought a total ban on the use of air horns and loudspeakers by automobiles.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the statutory rules and Government Orders regulating the use of loudspeakers and air horns were not being enforced by the authorities. The Court found that the use of loudspeakers and air horns was causing serious health hazards and disturbance to public order and tranquillity.

Issues: 1. Whether the statutory rules and Government Orders regulating the use of loudspeakers and air horns were being enforced by the authorities? 2. Whether the use of loudspeakers and air horns was causing serious health hazards and disturbance to public order and tranquillity?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the statutory rules and Government Orders regulating the use of loudspeakers and air horns were not being enforced by the authorities. 2. The Court found that the use of loudspeakers and air horns was causing serious health hazards and disturbance to public order and tranquillity.

Final Decision: The Court issued directions to the Government to ensure strict enforcement of the statutory rules and Government Orders regulating the use of loudspeakers and air horns. The Court also directed the Government to set up a separate cell in the office of the Commissioner of Police in the City of Madras and in the Office of the Superintendent of Police in each District to receive complaints against violation of the conditions.

Judgment :-

SRINIVASAN, J.

1. The first of the Writ Petitions is for issue of a mandamus directing the State Government to impose strict conditions for obtaining licence for the use of amplifiers and loud speakers under Section 41 and/or Section 71-A of the Madras City Police Act, 1888 and Section 10 of the Madras Towns Nuisance Act, 1889 and to ensure that the licencees do not violate the conditions thus imposed, resulting in damage to public health or cause annoyance to the public. In the second petition, which is filed by the same person, the prayer is for issue of mandamus directing the State Government and the Director General of Police (Law and Order) to issue appropriate orders imposing a total ban on the usage of horn type of loud speakers, amplifiers and air horns by automobiles. The third writ petition is by a Trust called Consumer Action Group represented by its trustee, for issue of a mandamus directing the State Government, the Police Authorities and the Secretary, Transport Department, to implement a proper system of regulations of loud speakers and air horns and other noise pollution activities on the basis of the instructions and Page guidelines to be laid down by this Court.

2. The petitioners have described in detail in their affidavits the serious health hazard and disturbance to public order and tranquillity caused by the uncontrolled noise pollution prevailing in the State. The grievance of the petitioners is more because of the failure of the authorities concerned to enforce the relevant rules and implement effectively the conditions subject to which licences are issued for use of loud speakers and amplifiers. Though particular instances of glaring violations are set out in the affidavits, it is not necessary for us to consider them in detail, as none of the persons who are responsible for such alleged violations is before the Court. In the first writ petition initially the State Government was the only respondent, but later the Consumer Action Group, who is the petitioner in the third writ petition, was impleaded as second respondent by order dated 17-9-1994 in W.M.P. No. 19719 of 1985, while the Commissioner of Police, Madras, was impleaded as the third respondent by order dated 7-10-1994 in W.M.P. No. 18261 of 1985.

3. On 7-10-1994, one of us sitting singly, passed an order in W.M.P. No. 18209 of 1985 directing the respondents to strictly enforce the conditions set out in the Annexure to G.O.Ms. No. 3485, dated 29-12-1977 till the disposal of the writ petition. The said conditions were extracted in the order. It was also observed that any violations of the conditions could be brought to the notice of the concerned authorities by any citizen of the country. On the same day, by another order, the matter was directed to be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice for constituting a Division Bench to hear the Writ Petitions as they involve a very important question concerning the entire State of Tamil Nadu with regard to the use of loud speakers and air horns. Thereafter, on the orders of the Honble the Chief Justice, the matter has come up before us.


4. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the relevant provisions of law prevailing in this State and also the judgments of the Courts in this country as well as in England and U.S.A. In so far as loud speakers are concerned, there are two enactments governing the use of the same. The Madras City Police Act, 1888 applies to the City of Madras. Section 41 thereof empowers the Commissioner or subject to his orders, any Police officer above the rank of head constable, to regulate assemblies, meetings and processions in public places, etc. Sub-Section (1) enables him to license and regulate or prohibit the use of music or of sound amplifiers in any area. Sub-Section (8) makes the Section inapplicable to any assembly or meeting of a purely religious character held in a recognized place of worship, any assembly or meeting gathered together purely for the p







































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top