IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 30TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 5939 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

ABDUL AZEEZ K.I, AGED 55 YEARS S/O HYDRU, SECRETARY, CENTRAL JUMA-ATH COMMITTEE KALIYAR ROAD PALLI & JARAM, KALIYAR ROAD P.O, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680586 K.I.SAGEER MUHAMMED YASIL RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OFFICE, AYYANTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR - 680003

3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR CITY, THRISSUR - 680001

4 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHELAKKARA, POLICE STATION, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR - 680586 SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE – GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner - who is stated to be the Secretary of a mosque - has approached this Court impugning Ext.P3, saying that the said proceedings of the fourth respondent - Police Inspector, is illegal because it prohibits them from using loudspeakers beyond 10 P.M even for public emergencies. He submitted that “public emergency” is an exemption carved out in the applicable statute itself enabling use of loudspeaker system after 10 P.M., and hence that Ext.P3 is liable to be set aside by this Court.

2. However, Smt.Vidya Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, in response to the afore submissions of Sri.K.I.Sageer – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P3, the fourth respondent has only directed the petitioner not to use loudspeaker system for festivities beyond 10 P.M.; and that, this is in terms of the statutory scheme as approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Forum For the Prevention of Envn. and Sound Pollution v. Union of India [2005 KHC 1853]. She added that, if there is any public emergency, obviously, the exemptions appearing in the statute itself would come into play; but, for which, the petitioner must obtain necessary orders from the Government. She argued that, under the guise of a public emergency, what the petitioner is trying to do is to get away from the rigor of the statutory inhibition in using the public address system after 10 P.M.; and thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

3. I must say that there is force in the afore submissions of Smt.Vidya Kuriaksoe because, even on an ex facie glance through Ext.P3, it is rendered clear that the fourth respondent has only directed the petitioner not to use the public address system for festivities after 10 P.M. This is in consonance with the statutory requirements and cannot find any reason why the petitioner should have approached this Court through this writ petition.

4. That said, if the petitioner has a case that there may arise an emergency, in which the public address system will have to be used, he can certainly approach the fourth respondent appropriately and the stipulations in the statutory exemptions invoked. For this, he does not have to challenge Ext.P3 because, notwithstanding the same, in cases where there is a public emergency, a loudspeaker system can be used and the fourth respondent surely will not inhibit it, if valid cause is projected.

5. Obviously, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner, seeking a direction to the first respondent to grant exemption to them to use the loudspeakers from 9 P.M. on 24.02.2024 to 4 A.M. on 25.02.2024 for the festivities can never be granted; and that if there should be a reason for granting an exemption, then it is for them to move the Government appropriately, through an apposite application. In the absence of any such application having been filed, I cannot find Ext.P3 to be in error.

6. I am guided to the afore view on account of the declarations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Forum For the Prevention of Envn. and Sound Pollution (supra), wherein, the following have been stated in paragraph 12