Dismissed

Sagunthala, v. the District Collector

Madras HC21 Jan 2013WP(MD)/1066/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ to restrain authorities from permitting night-time temple festivals causing noise and traffic nuisance. Court held petition academically instituted and directed respondents to regulate festivals with strict time limits and abide by noise guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; respondents directed to regulate festivals with time limits and impose strict conditions for noise control.

Sagunthala, Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.01.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.1066 of 2013

¶8

Sagunthala .. Petitioner vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Virudhunagar District.

¶10

2.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶11

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

¶12

O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Srivilliputhur,

¶13

Virudhunagar District.

¶14

4.The Inspector of Police, Mamsapuram Police Station, Mamsapuram, Virudhunagar District. .. Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from granting permission to conduct any political meeting or any other temple festival function in front of the Pillayar temple, 3^rd Main Road, Mamsapuram, Virudhunagar District.

¶16

For petitioner : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen

¶18

Additional Govt. Pleader

¶19

for R-5

¶20

Mr.K.Kumaravel

¶21

for Telugu Maha Jana Sabai

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA,J., )

¶24

The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition seeking for the relief of forbearing the respondents from granting permission to conduct any political meeting or any other temple festival https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ function in front of the Pillayar temple, 3^rd Main Road, Mamsapuram, Virudhunagar District.

¶25

¶26

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a resident of Mamsapuram, Virudhunagar District and she has come forward with this Public Interest Litigation considering the interest of the public at large. It is contended that the 3^rd main street is an important place to reach the Mamsapuram Bus Stand, where a Pillaiyar Temple is situate. It is also contended that the Organizing Committee is performing temple festivals periodically by conducing record dance and other cultural programmes through out the night time, causing not only traffic jam but also noise pollution, which would be a serious health hazard to the public. It is also contended that the official respondents are not regularizing the said temple festivals by imposing certain conditions, while granting permission to conduct such festivals. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that in view of the same, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 10.12.2012 and in spite of the same, no action has been taken.

¶27

3.Mr.K.Kumaravel, learned counsel appearing for the Telugu Maha Jana Sabai would contend that the present writ petition is preferred against a Committee of Organizers of Telugu Maha Jana Sabai and they are periodically conducting the festival at Virudhunagar, without causing any hindrance and inconvenience to the public for the past 20 years. It is also contended that they also obtained proper permission from the police and other authorities and they are strictly following the conditions imposed in such permission.

¶28

4.Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader, who has taken notice for the official respondents, would submit that the official respondents would take effective steps to regulate and instruct the Organizers to follow the conditions strictly.

¶29

5.We have carefully considered the submissions made on both sides and also perused the available records.

¶30

6.The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Organizers of the temple festival committee have been conducting the temple festival through out the night hours causing not only traffic jam but also noise pollution, which would result in health hazard to the public. It is seen that the organizers have already obtained permission from the appropriate authorities.

¶31

7.Hence, we are also constrained to state that it is for the respondents to regulate such festival by imposing suitable conditions and time limit. It is for them to restrict the celebrations for a fixed time, not after 10.30 p.m. It is also for the official respondents to regularize the noise pollution.

¶32

8.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1995-1-L.W.319 ( M.S.Appa Rao vs the Government of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary, Home Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 and 2 others ), wherein, the authorities have been directed to impose strict conditions for the issue of licence for the use of amplifier and loud speakers. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

¶34

9.Therefore, we are constrained to make it clear that it is for the respondents to follow the said guidelines scrupulously in the light of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court cited supra.

¶35

10.With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶36

Vs Sd/Assistant Registrar[AS] /True copy/

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

¶39

1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Mamsapuram Police Station, Mamsapuram, Virudhunagar District. +1 cc to Mr.G.Karuppasamy, Advocate SR.No.2398. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.2611.

¶40

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.1066 of 2013 Dated:21.01.2013 3P/7C RPB 30.01.2013

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Sagunthala, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagunthala, v. the District Collector

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

The Government of Tamilnadu Vs Subbalakshmi Lakshmipathy

Ramaraj Vs the Secretary to Govt.

M. Abraham, Vs the District Collector

M. Sasi, Vs the District Collector

Seetharaman, Vs the District Collector

S. Santha, Vs the Chief Executive Engineer