HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Akshay Vardhan .....Petitioner(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ankit Mishra, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shyam Mani Shukla Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Shambhu Chopra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ankit Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Shyam Mani Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.4-Nagar Nigam, Agra.

2. The instant writ petiton is preferred, inter alia, for the following reliefs:-

“(I) Issue any other writ, order a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the respondent no.6 by which the application filed by the petitioner dated 13.11.2025 has been rejected.

(II) Issue any other writ, order a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to take appropriate action over the grievance of the petitioner and get ensured the density of noise near the houses of the petitioner as per standards fixed by government.”

3. At the outset, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel raised an objection qua the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground that the petitioner claiming himself to be the resident of Sapan Bagh Colony has earlier preferred Writ-C No.11003 of 2024 (Akshay Vardhan v. State of U.P. & Ors.) for a direction to the respondent authorities to restore the status of Sapan Bagh Park situated in Sapan Bagh Colony, Agra and to stop noise pollution being caused by a temple constructed in the park. In the said proceeding, the Division Bench had invited the objection from the respondent authority and after considering the claim and counter claim set up by the parties had dismissed the writ petition with detailed observations on 18.10.2024. For ready reference, the operative portion of the order dated 18.10.2024 is reproduced as under:-

"......11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

12. It is not disputed before us that the father of the petitioner has already instituted a civil suit against the residents of the colony in relation to the same park and has sought permanent prohibitory injunction against them. An order of status quo is still operating in the said suit. The said fact was a crucial fact and has an important bearing on the issue sought to be raised in the writ petition, but it has not been disclosed and thus dis-entitles the petitioner to any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

13. Apart from it, we notice that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ No. 22613 of 2023. In the said writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner was in relation to construction of a temple in the park and also installation of cameras and loudspeakers allegedly resulting in breach of privacy and noise pollution. A coordinate Bench while disposing of the said writ petition by order dated 25.07.2023 observed that the issues raised involve disputed questions of fact and, therefore, writ petition was not an appropriate remedy. The petition was, therefore, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the administrative authorities for redressal of his grievance. The present petition is in respect of same cause of action, i.e. alleged noise pollution and existence of temple in the park in respect of which, the Court, in previous writ petition, had declined to interfere.

14. Thirdly, the U.P. Pollution Control Board has already recommended to the District Magistrate to take appropriate action, in case of any noise pollution and for which the remedy is available before the authorities.

15. As the civil suit is already pending and therefore, it is always open to the petitioner and his father, who had instituted the suit to seek appropriate amendments therein and pray for such other reliefs