The court upheld the petitioner's right to use loudspeaker despite prior jurisdictional refusals, emphasizing timely decisions from authorities for public events.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner sought for permission for use of loudspeaker in connection with the festival of Udayarkunnu Bhagavathy Temple, Arakurissi, Mannarkkad on 28/2/2026, 1/3/2026 and 2/3/2026 from 10.00 pm to 11.00 pm. The same has been rejected by the 4^th respondent, vide Ext.P3.

2. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the 4^th respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for use of loudspeaker. Within the permitted hours, permission has to be granted by the 3^rd respondent; and beyond that, application ought to have been filed before the 1^st respondent.

3. As regards use of loudspeaker, this Court has already laid down the law as per judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No.4822/2026, read with the clarificatory Order dated 12/2/2026. In the circumstances, the entitlement of the petitioner for use of loudspeaker for an additional hour in connection with the temple festival cannot be assailed.

4. In view of the submissions made by learned Government Pleader, the petitioner will stand directed to file necessary application before the 3^rd respondent, and on the strength of the law laid down by this Court, the 3^rd respondent will stand directed to issue necessary permission to the petitioner for the use of loudspeaker for an extra hour.

5. Such recourse is made taking stock of the following facts as well:-

I am aware of the fact that, as per Rule 5(3) of the Kerala Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, it is the 1^st respondent, who is the competent authority to grant permission beyond the permitted hours of 10.00 pm. However, the 1^st respondent had already signified his reluctance in this regard by issuance of two Orders, both of which have been set aside by this Court in W.P(C) nos.4966/2026 and 6576/2026. In such circumstances, this Court is not anymore inclined to relegate the matter to the 1^st respondent, which will be an exercise in idiocy. In both the cases above referred, this Court was constrained to grant permission due to the recalcitrant and contemptuous attitude of the 1^st respondent and also due to paucity of time. In the instant case also, the festival stand scheduled tomorrow (28/2/2026), and there is little time left for relegating the matter to the 1^st respondent, especially when the same is not going to fetch any result, despite the law being laid down by this Court. This Court has already issued show cause to the 1^st respondent for disobedience of the judgment in W.P(C)No.6576/2026.

6. In the above referred peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court directs the 3^rd respondent to consider the application to be filed by the petitioner and to grant permission for use of loudspeaker for an extra hour commencing from 10.00 pm to 11.00 pm on the three days above referred.

This Writ Petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-