Disposed

Sri Prashant Rao v. the Commissioner of Police - Bengaluru

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2021WP/2969/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition complaining about noise nuisance from a temple. Finding the impugned temple does not use loud speakers, the court directed the petitioner to file complaints under the Noise Pollution Rules for violations by other temples.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; directed petitioner to file complaints under Rule 7 of the Noise Pollution Rules regarding violations by other temples.

Sri Prashant Rao Vs the Commissioner of Police… — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.2969 OF 2021 (GM-POL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI PRASHANT RAO AGED 45 YEARS S/O GOVIND RAO 47/A, FIRST BLOCK, FIRST MAIN THAYAGARAJANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 028

¶11

... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SHRI PRASHANT RAO, PETITIONER IN-PERSON)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

¶15

BENGALURU

¶16

INFANTRY ROAD

¶17

BENGALURU - 560 001

¶18

THE CHAIRMAN

¶19

KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD "PARISARA BHAVAN"

¶20

#49, 4^TH & 5^TH FLOOR

¶21

CHURCH STREET, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶22

THE COMMISSIONER

¶23

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶24

N.R.ROAD CITY CORPORATION

¶25

BENGALURU - 560 002

¶26

... RESPONDENTS (SHRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 SMT. SHOBHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 SMT.M.R.SINCHANA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

¶27

¶28

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO STOP THE NOISE NUISANCE BY LOUD SPEAKERS AND DOL DRUMS KEPT ENCROACHED ROAD PORTION OF THE NARROW THYAGARAJANAGAR MAIN ROAD MARKED ANNEXURE-B AND ANNEXURE-B1 BY PANDURANGA TEMPLE.

¶30

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Heard the petitioner appearing in person, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State Government and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

¶33

Perused the statement of objections filed by the first respondent and the statements made in paragraph 5 onwards.

¶34

Now, there is a categorical statement that the Authorities of the temple subject matter of the petition are not using dol drums or amplifiers. The correctness of this statement is accepted by the petitioner appearing in person. However, he submits that there are other temples in the same locality which are flouting the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (for short, "the said Rules of 2000").

¶35

¶36

The "Authority" under clause (c) of Rule 2 of the said Rules of 2000 is defined to be a District Magistrate, Police Commissioner or any other person not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. These authorities are empowered to accept the complaints in accordance with Rule 7 of the said Rules of 2000 and take action in terms of Rule 8 of the said Rules of 2000. Therefore, if the petitioner appearing in person notices any such violation of the said Rules of 2000 committed by any other temple, he can file a complaint as provided under Rule 7 of the said Rules of 2000 to the Authority. The Authority is bound to act upon the complaint and if necessary, take immediate action in accordance with Rule 8 of the said Rules of 2000.

¶37

Subject to what is observed above, the petition is disposed of.

¶38

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

AHB

Sri Prashant Rao v. the Commissioner of Police - Bengaluru

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prashant Rao v. the Commissioner of Police - Bengaluru

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.S. Cargo Movers P Limited Vs Kamadhenu Infra Build Private Limited

Sri Shreesha S Udupa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Narayana S G Vs State of Karnataka

Lt. Col . S K Bhat Vs Rashmi

The Gathic Zoroastrian Anjuman Bangalore Vs Mr. J. Manjunath (Ias)

Dr Sampath Kumar Y M Vs N Ramakrishna Reddy