Dismissed

Shekhara.a v. the District Collector

Kerala HC17 Feb 2020WP(C)/339/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civ. WRIT PETITION - The petitioner sought directions to action against noise pollution by a club. The court granted liberty to refile a comprehensive petition after impleading respondents in other proceedings. The present writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to withdraw the present petition and file a comprehensive one; present petition dismissed as withdrawn.

Shekhara.a Vs the District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 28TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.339 OF 2020(N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHEKHARA.A

¶8

AGED 63 YEARS S/O.THIRKAN,ADRUKUZHI HOUSE, EDNEER P.O., KASARGOD671 541

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J PANICKER

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶12

CIVIL STATION, KASARGOD-671 123

¶13

2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KASARGOD-671 124

¶14

3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARGOD-671 124

¶15

4 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,KASARGOD-671 315

¶16

5 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD-671 124

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

T.NAVEEN SC, K.J.MANU RAJ G.P

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.(C)No.339/2020

¶21

¶22

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶23

W.P.(C)No.339 of 2020

¶24

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2020

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:-

¶27

“i. To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing the 3^rd respondent to take appropriate legal action against the Yuvasakthi club for beating the drum and other musical instruments in sound exceeding the limit prescribed in Noise Pollution (Regulation and control) Rules, 2000.

¶28

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing the 3^rd respondent to prohibit the use of drum and other musical instruments in sound exceeding the limit prescribed in Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 which is causing serious menace to the people residing in the locality.

¶29

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P9 complaint filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible within a time limit prescribed by this Hon'ble court.

¶30

iv. To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing the 3^rd respondent to control the use of drum and other musical instruments within the limits prescribed in Noise Pollution (Regulation and control) Rules, 2000 and to prohibit its use during the night time.”

¶31

2 . Sri. Saju J. Panciker, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶32

would submit on the basis of instructions of his party that the petitioner has been advised to file a fresh comprehensive Writ Petition (Civil), after impleading the respondents in Ext.P7 proceedings as respondents in the writ petition, and his necessary pleadings and prayers against them etc., and liberty may be given to the petitioner to withdraw the present writ petition for filing such fresh writ petition etc.

¶33

W.P.(C)No.339/2020

¶34

¶35

Liberty is accorded to the petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner known to law.

¶36

With the said liberty, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand dismissed as withdrawn.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

acd

W.P.(C)No.339/2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE COPY OF 15.10.2016 FILED THE 2ND RESPONDEN	THE COMPLAINT DATED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE T
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF 5.04.2019 FILED B THE 5TH RESPONDEN	THE COMPLAINT DATED Y THE PETITIONER BEFORE T
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE THE RIGHT TO INFO GIVEN BY THE 2ND	APPLICATION FILED UNDER RMATION ACT AND THE ANSWER RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE THE RIGHT TO INFO GIVEN TO THE APPE	APPLICATION FILED UNDER RMATION ACT AND THE REPLY AL
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF 27.04.2019 ISSUED THE ASSISTANT SUP KASARGOD	THE LETTER DATED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO ERINTENDENT OF POLICE ,
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF 25.04.2019 ISSUED SUPERINTENDENT OF	THE LETTER DATED BY THE ASSISTANT POLICE, KASARGOD
EXHIBIT P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDICIAL FIRS I, KASARGOD BY TH OF POLICE KASARGO	THE REPORT FILED BEFORE T CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- E ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT D
EXHIBIT P8	THE TRUE COPY OF 22.11.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER	THE COMPLAINT DATED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9	THE TRUE COPY OF 22.11.2019 FILED SUPERINTENDENT OF	THE COMPLAINT DATED BEFORE THE THE ASSISTANT POLICE, KASARGOD

Shekhara.a v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shekhara.a v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fathima Abdulkhadar Vs Regional Transport Officer

Joy Vs Perayam Grama Panchayath

Laisa Asharaf Vs the District Collector

Bobby Philip, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

P.K. Varghese, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Rajeesh.R Vs State of Kerala