BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. RAJAMANICKAM, J.
C. Ganesan - Petitioner
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli & Another - Respondents
W.P(MD) No. 1212 of 2018
Decided On : 23-01-2018
Innisai Kacheri - Permission for Night Program - Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 - Rule 5
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought permission to conduct a music program from 10.00 p.m to 3.00 a.m on the eve of Temple Kodai Festival. The second respondent initially denied permission citing noise pollution rules and a Supreme Court judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the second respondent's order, stating that the petitioner could conduct the program using a loudspeaker or public address system in an open place before 10.00 p.m or in closed premises after obtaining necessary permission.
Issues: Permission for conducting a night program, interpretation of Noise Pollution Rules, 2000, and the applicability of a Supreme Court judgment on noise pollution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to enforce Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, and highlighted the requirement for written permission to use loudspeakers or public address systems. It also clarified the options for conducting the program within the legal framework.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, directing the petitioner to choose a closed premises for the program beyond 10.00 p.m and inform the second respondent before 9.30 p.m, with the requirement for proper protection for the program.
1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 21.01.2018 and direct the respondents to grant permission to conduct Innisai Kacheri from 10.00 p.m to 3.00 a.m on 23.01.2018 in the eve of Temple Kodai Festival in Arulmigu Ramalinga Udanurai Sreee Sivakamiammal, Sree Nambi Singaperumal temple situates in Panagudi Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Executive Officer of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department has passed an order granting permission to Adi Dravidar community people to celebrate the function in the said temple on 23.01.2018 and on behalf of the said community, the petitioner has submitted a representation before the respondents and since no order has been passed on the said representation, the petitioner has filed W.P.(MD).No.1032 of 2018 before this Court. He further submitted that this court, by an order dated 19.01.2018, directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation with relevant documents before the second respondent on or before 21.01.2018 and if such representation is made by the petitioner, the second respondent has to consider the said representation and also enquire the Executive Officer of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department of the concerned temple and pass appropriate orders on or before 22.01.2018. He further submitted that as per the aforesaid directions issued by this Court, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents on 20.01.2018, seeking permission for conducting Innisai Kacheri programme on 23.01.2018 from 10.00 p.m to 03.00 a.m. He further submitted that the second respondent, citing the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in Church of God (Full Gospel) in India Vs K.K.R. Magestic Colony Welfare Association and Others, [(2000) 7 SCC 282] and also Rule 5 of Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control), Rules, 2000, granted permission to the petitioner to complete all the programmes before 10.00 p.m. He further submitted that this Court has already granted permission in W.P.(MD).No.1009 of 2018, dated 19.01.2018, for celebrating the function even beyond 10.00 p.m on 22.01.2018 for another person namely A.Sundaram and hence, the same kind of order may also be passed in this petition also.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that after passing of the order by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.1009 of 2018, dated 19.01.2018, it was brought to the knowledge of the second respondent that the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Church of God (Full Gospel) in India Vs K.K.R. Magestic Colony Welfare Association and Others (supra), has held that a loud speaker or a public address system shall not be used at night between 10.00 p.m to 06.00 a.m and hence, the aforesaid impugned order has been passed.
5. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in Church of God (Full Gospel) in India Vs K.K.R. Magestic Colony Welfare Association and Others (supra) has held that rules prescribing reasonable restrictions including the Rules for the use of loud speakers and voice amplifiers framed under the Madras Town Nuisances Act, 1889 and also the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 are required to be enforced. The aforesaid decision was not brought to the knowledge of this court while passing order in W.P.(MD).No.1009 of 2018. Hence, the petitioner cannot rely upon the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.1009 of 2018.
6. Since in the aforesaid decision, the Honourable Supreme Court has directed the authorities to enforce Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, it is relevant to refer Rule 5 of the said Rules, which reads thus:-
“5. Restrictions on the use of loudspeakers/public address system:-
(1) A loudspeaker or a public address s
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.