( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution raises the question of the validity of certain bye-laws framed by the Municipal Board, Allahabad. According to the petitioners affidavit, he is the General Secretary of the Socialist Party, Allahabad. He wanted to organize a public meeting. He was in need of a loud-speaker. But he was unable to get any Loud-speaker. He was told that under bye-laws framed by the Municipal Board, Allahabad it is necessary to secure permission from the Executive Officer, Municipal Board for getting a loud-speaker. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus prohibiting the Municipal board, Allahabad from enforcing the said bye-laws.

( 2 ) THE Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Allahabad has filed a counter-affidavit. A copy of the bye-laws in question has been filed. The material provisions of the bye-laws are that permission has to be taken for the use of loudspeakers. Further, certain fees have been prescribed for obtaining such permission.

( 3 ) MR. G. K. Sahai appearing for the petitioner attacked the bye-laws on three grounds. His main contention was that the bye-laws infringe the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, guarantees the right of freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. It is said that the restriction on the use of loudspeakers amounts to undue interference with the right of freedom of speech and expression.

( 4 ) IN "romesh Thappar v. . State of Madras," 1950 SCR 594: (AIR 1950 SC 124) (A), their lordships of the Supreme Court observed at page 597 (of SCR) : (at p. 127 of AIR) that, freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas, and that freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation.

( 5 ) THE right to use loud-speakers came up for consideration before the United States Supreme court in Saia v. People of the State of New York, (1948) 92 Law Ed 1574 (B ). A municipal ordinance prohibited the use of amplifying devices casting sound upon streets and public places, except with the permission of the chief of police, without prescribing standards for the exercise of his discretion. The Court held by majority that, the ordinance violated the constitutional right of free speech. Dissenting opinions were given by four learned Judges of the Court. Jackson J. , was of the opinion that, society has the right to control as to place, time, and volume, the use of laud-speaking devices for any purpose, provided the regulations are not unduly arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory.

( 6 ) THE majority of the Supreme Court of America took a, different view in a subsequent case kovacs v. Cooper, (1949) 93 Law Ed. 513 (C ). In that case a city ordinance prohibited the operation upon the streets of sound amplifiers of other instruments emitting loud and raucous noises. It was held by a majority of the Court that, sound amplification in streets and public places is subject to reasonable regulation.

( 7 ) IT is true that Article 19 (1) (a) of our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression. But the use of mechanical appliances is not guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a ). Use of mechanical instruments like loud-speakers and amplifiers is not covered by the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression. I, therefore, do not think that the impugned bye-laws infringe article 19 (I) (a) of the Constitution,

( 8 ) THE second contention of Mr. O. K. Sahai is that, the bye-laws are beyond the powers conferred on the Municipal Board of Allahabad by the U. P. Municipalities Act. Section 298 of the U. P. Municipalities Act gives powers to Boards to make bye-laws. There is a long list of possible regulations. Part H of the list deals with public safety and convenience. There are several clauses in part H. Clause (m) of part H is:

"prohibiting or regulating, with a view to promoting the public safety or convenience, any act which occasi