Dismissed

Wecom Trust and 2 Anr. v. Union of India and 5 Ors. Sandip Deshpande - Applicant

Bombay HC3 Feb 2012NMW/6/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Notice of Motion filed in PIL 116 of 2009, the applicant sought permission to hold an election meeting at Shivaji Park using loudspeakers. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the Noise Pollution Rules limit sound levels in Silence Zones and that the Park serves as a public recreational area, not solely for political meetings.

What did the court decide?

The Notice of Motion for clarification and permission to hold a public meeting with loudspeakers was dismissed.

Wecom Trust and 2 Anr. Vs Union of India and 5 Ors… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

nm-6-12 in pil-116-09

¶2

gopi

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.6 OF 2012 IN

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.116 OF 2009

¶7

Wecom Trust ..Petitioners

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶10

And

¶11

Sandip Deshpande ...Applicant

¶12

Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar for the Applicant.

¶13

Mr.Shamsher Garud and Mr. Nikhil Davale i/b. Udwadia Udeshi for the petitioners.

¶14

Ms. S.M. Modle, for respondent B.M.C. Mr. P.G. Lad, A.G.P. for Respondent State. P.H. Tolia i/b. Sharmila Deshmukh and Ms. Swati Deshmukh for Mr. G.S.Kulkarni and Mr. H.V. Mehta for respondent No.1.

¶15

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 03 February 2012.

¶16

P.C.

¶17

In this Notice of Motion the applicant Shri Sandip Deshpande has prayed for clarification/modification of the order dated 5 May 2010 of this Court in PIL No.116 of 2009 and has prayed for direction to the respondent authorities to grant necessary permission to the applicant for organising/holding a public meeting at Shivaji Park on 13 February 2012 between 6.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. for the purpose of elections to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai scheduled to be held on 16 February 2012.

¶18

nm-6-12 in pil-116-09

¶19

gopi

¶20

¶21

The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has a fundamental right to organise/hold a meeting for the purpose of addressing the voters for the ensuing Municipal elections. It is submitted that the Municipal Corporation has rejected the applicant's application for permission on the ground of the order dated 5 May 2010 of this Court. That order was pertaining to a declaration of Silence Zone and the Shivaji Park is declared as a Silence Zone. However, merely because this Court has directed the authorities to declare the Shivaji Park as a Silence Zone, the applicant and other prospective users of the Shivaji Park are not precluded from using loud speakers or public address system. It is submitted that the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 do contemplate some limit on the noise pollution, but if the applicant is ready to comply with the ambient air quality standards in the area in question at 50 decibel it would be within the permissible limits as laid down in Rule 3, 3(1) and 4(1) read with the Schedule which provides that during day time (i.e. from 6.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m) the noise level upto 50 decibel is permissible in the silence zone. During night time i.e. from 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m., noise pollution level cannot go above the schedule limit of 40 decibel. It is submitted that since the applicant proposes to hold an election meeting between 6.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m., the applicable noise level norms in the Silence Zone would be 50 decibel. It is submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by the said standard.

¶22

The Notice of Motion is seriously opposed by the original PIL Writ Petitioners and their learned counsel submits that Shivaji Park is a playground and, therefore, the area cannot be used for non-sports activities, unless that particular day is notified as one of the 30 days for

¶23

gopi 3 nm-6-12 in pil-116-09

¶24

which the State Government can grant exemption under Section 37A of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966.

¶25

It is further submitted that the very fact that the applicant proposes to use the loud speakers, there will be violation of Rule 6 which provides for fine to be imposed in case of use of loud speaker or public address system in a Silence Zone.

¶26

The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that another political party has also made similar request which came to be rejected by the Municipal Corporation and there will be flood gate of such applications by various political parties and candidates for holding meetings before the elections. The present applicant himself has made 28 applications for holding public meetings in Shivaji Park on almost all days prior to the elections to the Municipal Corporation. Shivaji Park will then cease to be a playground or even a recreation ground and will only become a place for public meetings and functions.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that in Writ Petition Lodging No.663 of 2011 this Court had an occasion to consider the question. One of the questions being considered by this Court in PIL No.116 of 2009 is whether Shivaji Park is a playground as contended by the writ petitioner or whether it is a recreational ground. Whatever be the nature of the Shivaji Park, whether a playground or recreational ground, Noise Pollution Rules will definitely apply and as per the said Rules the limit of 50 decibel would apply to a Silence Zone during day time i.e. between 6.00 and 10.00 p.m.

¶28

Having regard to the fact that the applicant has applied for permission to hold public meetings on several days (28 days) once such

¶29

gopi 4 nm-6-12 in pil-116-09

¶30

permission is granted to the applicant, there will be many other parties/candidates who will also be coming forward and ultimately if it is held that Shivaji Park is a playground, there will be violation of Section 37A of the M.R.T.P. Act. Once permission is granted to the present applicant the Municipal Corporation will not be in a position to deny similar permission to the other parties/candidates and all of them will be using loudspeakers throughout the period of run-up to the elections.

¶31

Having regard to the fact that Shivaji Park is declared as a Silence Zone on account of the educational institutions and hospitals situated in the area, permitting a large number of public meetings to be held on a number of days will result into violation of the Noise Pollution standards as prescribed in the Schedule to the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.

¶32

The Apex Court has held that though a citizen has the fundamental right to hold public meetings, on a public street, such a fundamental right cannot be exercised at each and every place. It is open to the authorities to decide whether such public meetings should be allowed to be held at any particular place. In Railway Board v. Narinjan Singh, (1969) 1 SCC 502 the Apex Court held as under:-

¶33

“The fact that the citizens of this country have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble peaceably and freedom to form associations or unions does not mean that they can exercise those freedoms in whatever place they please.”

¶34

This decision was also considered in Himat Lal K. Shah vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad & Anr., (1973) 1 SCC 227.

¶35

gopi 5 nm-6-12 in pil-116-09

¶36

In view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to grant the relief prayed for by the applicant. Notice of Motion is accordingly dismissed.

¶37

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶38

(RANJIT V. MORE, J.)

Wecom Trust and 2 Anr. v. Union of India and 5 Ors. Sandip Deshpande - Applicant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wecom Trust and 2 Anr. v. Union of India and 5 Ors. Sandip Deshpande - Applicant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Enterprises Vs M/S. Rajesh Estates and Nirman Ltd.

M/S. Gupta Synthetics Limited Vs SBI Global Factors Ltd.(Formerly Known as M/S/ Global Trade Finance Ltd)

Tekchand Gopaldas Khanchandani Vs State Election Commissioner and 2 Ors.

Bengal Mill Stores Private Ltd. Vs Jayesh C. Doshi and 4 Ors.

M/S. Unimers India Ltd. Vs Vinergy International Pvt. Ltd.

Wecom Trust and 2 Anr. Vs Union of India and 5 Ors. and Lokmat Media Ltd., - Applicant