Rajendran v. The District Collector, Kollam and Others

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.35605 OF 2018(A)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **RAJENDRAN, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.LATE BHASKARAN, PREENALAYAM, KOTTAMKARA, CHANDANATHOPU P.O., KOLLAM-691 014.** **BY ADVS. SRI.DIPU.R SRI.K.S.BAIJU SMT.K.P.SUSMITHA SMT. DEVI KRIPA R. SMT.DHANYA BABU SMT.P.A.PRIYA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**| |---|---| ||**KOLLAM, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM - 691 013.**| |**2**|**DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GENERAL) AND ADDITIONAL**| ||**DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-**| ||**691013.**| |**3**|**THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,**| ||**KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, OFFICE**| ||**OF THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, USHUS**| ||**BUILDING, BIG BAZAR, KOLLAM - 691001.**| |**4**|**THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,**| ||**KOLLAM (RURAL), OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE**| ||**CHIEF, KOLLAM RURAL, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-**| ||**691506.**| -2- W.P.(C). No. 35605 of 2018 - **5 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA, OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA, KOLLAM - 691501.** - **6 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KUNDARA, KOLLAM- 691501.** - **7 THE SECRETARY, KOTTAMKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTTAMKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KUTTICHIRA, PEROOR ROAD, TKMC P.O., KOLLAM - 691 577.** **8 KOTTAMKARA KOTTACHIRA MADANCAVU MAHADEVA TEMPLE COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.SHYLESH, KOTTAMKARA, CHANDANATHOPU.P.O., KOLLAM - 691014.** **R1-6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R7 BY SRI.PRATHEESH P., SC, KOTTAMKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT R8 BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN R8 BY ADV. SRI.B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY-SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1,R2 AND R4 TO R6 ; SRI T. NAVEEN- STANDING COUNSEL FOR R3** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -3- W.P.(C). No. 35605 of 2018 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is a resident near Kottamkara Kottachira Madancavu Mahadeva Temple at Chandanathoppu in Kollam District. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 7 to take appropriate action against the 8[th] respondent Temple Managing Committee, in the light of the provisions under Noice Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, for the alleged indiscriminate use of its sound producing instruments, in violation of the noise norms prescribed under the said Rules. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 7 to take appropriate measures for permanently preventing the 8[th] respondent from operating/using sound boxes which are fitted with loudspeakers (kolambis); a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 to act upon Exts.P2, P3, P4, P7 and P9 complaints made by the petitioner; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 7 to act as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Church of God V. K.K.R Majestic Colony Welfare Association [2000 (3)** -4- W.P.(C). No. 35605 of 2018 **KLT 651]** and the judgments of this Court in **Aravindakshan v. Superintendent of Police [2002 (3) KLT 860]** and **Robin Chacko v. State of Kerala [2013 (1) KLT 746)]** , in curbing the noise pollution created by 8[th] respondent Temple Committee. 2. On 01.11.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the 8[th] respondent by speed post, returnable within three weeks. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 6; the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board took notice for the 3[rd] respondent; and the learned Standing Counsel for Kottamkara Grama Panchayat took notice for the 7[th] respondent. 3. On 11.01.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Standing Counsel/ learned counsel for other respondents sought time to file counter affidavit. This Court granted an interim order directing the 4[th] respondent District Police Chief, Kollam (Rural) to consider Ext.P4 complaint made by the petitioner in respect of -5- W.P.(C). No. 35605 of 2018 the loudspeaker used by the 8[th] respondent, allegedly causing inconvenience to the petitioner and other people residing in the locality. This Court has also made it clear that the 4[th] respondent shall pass appropriate orders in the said complaint adhering to the Rules, i.e., the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and thereafter, report the matter before this Court. 4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 6[th] respondent. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2020, an interlocutory application to accept Exts.P10 to P15 as additional documents, and also I.A.No.2 of 2020 seeking an order directing respondents 1 to 7 to take immediate action preventing the 8[th] respondent from using loudspeakers which are producing noise above the permitted sound level. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents, the respective Standing Counsel for respondents 3 and 7 and also the learned counsel for the 8[th] respondent Temple Committee. 6. Alleging that the 8[th] respondent Temple Committee -6- W.P.(C). No. 35605 of 2018 in using loudspeakers of high decibel, causing annoyance and disturbance to the petitioner and his family members, he filed Ext.P2, P3, P4, P7 and P9 complaints before the statutory authorities. According to the petitioner, his wife is a chronic cardiac patient. In order to substantiate the said fact, a copy of the discharge summary issued from ESIC Model and Super Speciality Hospital, Kollam, along with Coronary Angiogram Report are placed on record as Ext.P1. At the intervention of the 5[th] respondent Circle Inspector of Police, the 8[th] respondent Temple Committee removed the loudspeakers (kolambis) and replaced the same with sound boxes with speakers. According to the petitioner, after the intervention of the 5[th] respondent, the 8[th] respondent Temple Committee placed loudspeakers (kolambis) inside sound boxes. 7. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 11.01.2019, the 4[th] respondent District Police Chief passed Ext.P12 order on Ext.P4 complaint made by the petitioner. As directed by the 5[th] respondent, the officers of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board conducted inspection and found that the sound level of the loudspeakers used by the 8[th] -7- W.P.(C). No. 35605 of 2018 respondent Temple Committee is within the permissible sound level. In the said order, the 5[th] respondent has stated that in case complaints are received regarding use of loudspeakers by the 8[th] 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 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 -8- W.P.(C). No. 35605 of 2018 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 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 -9- W.P.(C). No. 35605 of 2018 caused. 10. Taking note of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra and also the stand taken by the 4[th] 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 8[th] 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. No order as to cost. Sd/- **ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** das -10- W.P.(C). No. 35605 of 2018 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ALONG WITH CORONARY ANGIOGRAM REPORT DATED 2.11.2016 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S WIFE FROM ESIC HEART CENTRE.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.12.17 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19.1.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT (DATED NIL).** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION ACCEPTANCE RECEIPT WITH NO.68 DATED 22.1.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION WITH NO.M9-52883/17 DATED 12.4.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 3.10.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT OF PETITION WITH NO.128743/2018 DATED 4.10.2018.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6.10.2018.** **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN THIS WRIT PETITION DATED 11/1/2019** -11- W.P.(C). No. 35605 of 2018 - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY F COMMUNICATION WITH NO.ENDT.NO.D-38669/2018/QR, DATED 17/1/2019** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 18/3/2019 EXHIBITMP 12A TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P12** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY RECEIPT WITH PETITION NO.28677/2019/QR DATED 1/8/2019** - **EXHIBIT P13A TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P13** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 26/11/2019 BEFORE THE HON'LE CHIEF MINISTER** - **EXHIBIT P14A TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P14** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT WITH NO.CMO 19048284** **EXHIBIT P15A THE TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P15**