Rajendran v. K.B.Ravi, IPS and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944 CON.CASE(C)NO.463 OF 2021** **ARISING FROM THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.06.2020 IN** **W.P.(C)NO.35605 OF 2018 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER:** **RAJENDRAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. LATE BHASKARAN, PREENALAYAM, KOTTAMKARA, CHANDANATHOPU P.O., KOLLAM 691 014.** **BY ADVS. DIPU.R SMT. DEVI KRIPA R. SRI.K.S.BAIJU SMT.DHANYA BABU SMT.P.A.PRIYA SMT.NEETHU SASI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 K.B.RAVI, IPS,(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KOLLAM (RURAL), OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM RURAL, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506.** **2 SAJIKUMAR V.S., (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA, OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA, KOLLAM – 691 501.** Contempt Case(C) No.463 of 2021 2 **3 ANTONY, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KUNDARA, KOLLAM- 691 501.** **4 SHYLESH(DELETED), AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. RATNAKARAN SECRETARY, KOTTAMKARA, KOTTACHIRA , MADANCAVU MAHADEVA TEMPLE COMMITTEE, KOTTAMKARA, CHANDANATHOPU.P.O., KOLLAM – 691 014.** **RESPONDENT NO.4 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DTD 07/04/2021 IN IA 1/21 IN COC 463/2021** ## **BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI. JACOB E. SIMON - GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Contempt Case(C) No.463 of 2021 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has filed this contempt case alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure 1 judgment of this Court dated 15.06.2020 in W.P.(C)No.35605 of 2018, whereby that writ petition was disposed of with certain directions. Paragraphs 7 to 10 of that judgment reads thus; “7. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 11.01.2019, the 4th respondent District Police Chief passed Ext.P12 order on Ext.P4 complaint made by the petitioner. As directed by the 5th respondent, the officers of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board conducted inspection and found that the sound level of the loudspeakers used by the 8th respondent Temple Committee is within the permissible sound level. In the said order, the 5th respondent has stated that in case complaints are received regarding use of loudspeakers by the 8th respondent Temple Committee, exceeding the permissible sound level, stringent action shall be taken. 8. In **Forum, Prevention of Environmental and Sound Pollution v. Union of India [(2005) 5 SCC 733]** , the Apex Court, in the context of noise pollution in public place vis-a-vis right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, observed that Indian judicial opinion has been uniform in recognising the right to live Contempt Case(C) No.463 of 2021 4 in freedom from noise pollution as a fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, and noise pollution beyond permissible limits as an inroad into that right. People indulge in making noise beyond tolerable limits and create a health hazard unmindful of consequences which are likely to befall not only others but also themselves who create noise. Not only the use of loudspeakers and playing of hi-fi amplifier systems has to be regulated, even the playing of high sound instruments like drums, tom-toms, trumpets, bugles an the like which create noise beyond tolerable limits need to be regulated. The law enforcing agencies must be equipped with necessary instruments and facilities out of which sound level meters conforming to the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) code are a bare necessity. 9. In **Robin Chacko v. State of Kerala and others [2013 (1) KLT 746)]** , a Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Church of God V. K.K.R Majestic Colony Welfare Association [2000 (3) KLT 651]** , reiterated that no religion prescribes for performing prayers through amplifiers and that, use of microphone and loudspeakers by religious denomination are to be within the limits prescribed under the Environmental Laws and the Police Act. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of that writ petition, taking note of the statement filed by the District Police Chief, with a direction to the official respondents that, if any complaint regarding noise pollution due to Contempt Case(C) No.463 of 2021 5 indiscriminate use of loudspeakers is received from the residents of the locality, they shall take appropriate action as provided under law to abate and eliminate such pollution caused. 10. Taking note of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra and also the stand taken by the 4th respondent District Police Chief in Ext.P12 order, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 4 to 6, that, if any complaint regarding noise pollution due to indiscriminate use of loudspeakers, speaker boxes, etc., by the 8th respondent Temple Committee is received from the petitioner or other residents in the locality, they shall take appropriate action as provided under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and the Kerala Police Act, 2011 to abate and eliminate such noise pollution, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the both sides and after affording them an opportunity of being heard. ” 2. On 07.04.2021, when this contempt case came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to file affidavits of respondents 1 and 2. 3. The individual affidavits dated 09.04.2021 of respondents 1 and 2 are placed on record. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 03.01.2022. 4. On 06.04.2022, during the course of arguments, the Contempt Case(C) No.463 of 2021 6 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2[nd] respondent Circle Inspector of Police, who is the Station House Officer of Kundara Police Station, is not taking earnest efforts to ensure strict compliance of the directions contained in Annexure 1 judgment of this Court. By the order dated 06.04.2022, the 2[nd] respondent Circle Inspector of Police was directed to appear in person, along with the relevant files, for explaining the facts and circumstances. 5. Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, the present Station House Officer of Kundara Police Station is personally present in Court along with the relevant files, who explained the steps already taken for ensuring strict compliance of the directions contained in Annexure 1 judgment. 6. The Station House Officer would submit that in a joint meeting of all concerned, which was attended to by the petitioner, it was decided to keep the amplifier of the sound system in a locked box and the key of that box shall be kept by the Station House Officer, so that it can be ensured that the volume of the speakers are not increased beyond the Contempt Case(C) No.463 of 2021 7 permissible limit. The parties have agreed to abide by the said condition, in order to give a quietus to the entire issue. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, I find that, in view of the aforesaid decision taken in the joint meeting of all concerned, no orders are required in this contempt case, which can be closed recording the aforesaid fact. In such circumstances, recording the aforesaid fact, this contempt case is closed. **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** MIN Contempt Case(C) No.463 of 2021 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C)NO.463 of 2021** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** - **ANNEXURE 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 35605/2018 DATED 15/06/2020.** - **ANNEXURE 2 THE TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 22.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE 3 THE TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT WITH PETITION NO. 35123/2020/QR DATED 22/10/2020.** - **ANNEXURE 4 THE TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 25.01.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.** - **ANNEXURE 5 THE TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION WITH FILE NO. DCKLM/1390/2021-M16 DATED 29/01/2021.** - **ANNEXURE 6 THE TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 09/02/201 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE TWO SMALL BOXES IN THIDAPILLY** - **ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ANALYSIS REPORT OF THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VIDE REPORT NO.3 DATED 05.03.2021** - **ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BOXES FIXED AT THE THIDAPPALLI** - **ANNEXURE R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ANALYSIS REPORT VIDE REPORT NO.3 DATEDF 05.03.2021** - **ANNEXURE 7 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN HRMP NO.3340/11/11/2020/KLM DATED 18.06.2O21**