Disposed

P.N. Richard v. District Police Chief

Kerala HC6 Jan 2020WP(C)/12240/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner alleged noise pollution due to loudspeakers used by temple authorities and jewellers. The court held that such matters can be addressed by the police or Pollution Control Board and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Disposed with liberty to approach the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Pollution Control Board if the nuisance persists.

P.N. Richard Vs District Police Chief — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 16TH POUSHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.12240 OF 2013(D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.N. RICHARD GREESHMAM, THATHANCODE, ANAD.P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (RURAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 4 KANNEERKULAM SHREE PARASHAKTHI DEVI TEMPLE COMMITTEE THATHANCODE, ANAD.P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GANESAN.

¶12

5 MAHENDRAN ASARI.R. PARASAKTHI JEWELLERS, POTHENCODE, POTHENCODE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

6 GANESAN.A. PAVITHRAM JEWELLERS, VELLANAD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. ADDL. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, R7 DISTRICT OFFICE, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R7 AS PER ORDER DATED 13.06.2013 IN IA NO.7628/2013.

¶14

R4 BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.RAVIKRISHNAN, GOVT. PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) No.12240/2013

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 6^th day of January 2020

¶22

This writ petition was filed in the year 2013 alleging that the party

¶23

respondents are using microphones, amplifiers and loud speakers and causing noise pollution in the area where the petitioner inhabits.

¶24

If the nuisance exists, the petitioner is free to take up the matter

¶25

with the Deputy Superintendent of Police as well as with the Pollution

¶26

Control Board.

¶27

With liberty as above, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

smp

¶32

W.P.(C) No.12240/2013

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHAGE RECORD DATED 28.10.2010. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 19.11.2012. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 20.11.2012. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 20.12.2012. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT-TEMPLE ON 20.03.2013 BY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY FOR USING LOUDSPEAKER.

¶38

True Copy

¶39

P.S to Judge

¶40

smp

P.N. Richard v. District Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.N. Richard v. District Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Majeed Vs Village Officer, Thalikkulam

K.Unni Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(General)

Alex John Vs State of Kerala

Shyjambika Vs Secretary, Revenue Department

Pulpatta Service Co-Operative Bank Vs State of Kerala

M.J.Jose, Vs the State of Kerala