Disposed

The President, Natesar Alayam v. Rajendran S/O.Narayanan

Madras HC14 Oct 2019CRP(MD)/1176/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an execution order in a noise pollution dispute. The court held that since the decree holders had no objection due to the National Green Tribunal's order requiring periodic monitoring by the Pollution Control Board, the revision petition need not be pursued.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition disposed of; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

The President, Natesar Alayam Vs Rajendran S/O.Narayanan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1176 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.10.2019

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1176 of 2011

¶7

and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2011

¶8

1.The President, Natesar Alayam Illathar Samudayam Registration No.41/1969, Manavalakurichy, R.Velayudham

¶9

2.The Secretary, Natesar Alayam Illathar Samudayam Registration No.41/1969, Manavalakurichy, B.S.Rajendran

¶10

3.The President, Natesar Alayam Illathar Samudayam Registration No.41/1969, Manavalakurichy, S.Padmanabhan ... Petitioners/Respondents 1 to 3- Judgement Debtors 1 to 3/Defendants 1 to 3 Vs. 1.Rajendran 2.Narayanan 3.Vasantha ... Respondents 1 to 3/PetitionersDecree Holders 1, 2 & 4 /Plaintiffs 1, 2 & 4

¶11

1.Rajendran 2.Narayanan 3.Vasantha

¶12

4.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶13

5.The Sub Inspector of Police, Manavalakurichy Police Station, Manavalakurichy, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District. ..Respondents 4 and 5/Respondents 4 &5/Judgment Debtors 4 & 5/Defendants 4 & 5

¶14

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

¶15

1/3

¶16

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1176 of 2011

¶17

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 24.02.2011 passed in E.P.No.29 of 2009 in O.S.No.161 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Eraniel.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Arokiadas For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.Sreekumara Nair For R4 & R5 : Mr.J.Guna Seelan Muthiah Additional Government Pleader

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed in E.P.No.29 of 2009 in O.S.No.161 of 2004.

¶21

The respondents 1 to 3 had obtained a decree for mandatory injunction against the fourth respondent directing them to implement G.O.Ms.No.3485 dated 29.12.1977 relating to sound pollution caused by reason of the devotional songs being played over the speakers/ amplifiers by the petitioners herein.

¶22

The relief of mandatory injunction to remove the speaker system was negatived but the mandatory injunction was ordered directing the fourth respondent to implement G.O.Ms.No.3485 dated 29.12.1977 and its amendment introduced from time to time in the matter of playing music and songs over speakers and amplifiers and directing the respondents 1 to 3 to obtain necessary license within a reasonable time. Since there was violation of the decree for mandatory injunction, Execution Petition had been filed by the plaintiffs/decree holders. It also appears that in the meanwhile the third respondent/fourth plaintiff had approached the writ court seeking a direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil and the Inspector of Police, Manavalakurichi Police Station in W.P.No. 2886 of 2006 to stop the noise pollution being caused by the respondents 3 and 4/petitioners 1 and 2 herein. Pursuant to dismissal of the writ petition, the third respondent herein/fourth plaintiff has filed an appeal in W.A(MD)No.1440 of 2011 and on transfer, the same was taken on the file of the National Green Tribunal Southern Zone, Chennai.

¶23

It also appears that after referring the matter to the Tribunal, an inspection was conducted by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and it is found that one amplifier had been removed and the noise was being contained with the prescribed limit. In view of the above order, the respondents 1 to 3/decree holders do not have any objection for the Civil Revision Petition being ordered.

¶24

In view of the above order of the National Green Tribunal Southern Zone, Chennai, dated 10.10.2014, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/decree holders undertakes not to execute the order dated 24.02.2011 passed in E.P.No.29 of 2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

2/3

¶26

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1176 of 2011

¶27

It is needless to state that as per the condition imposed by the Tribunal, the District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Nagercoil District shall periodically monitor the noise level generated by playing the devotional songs in the temple of the petitioners herein.

¶28

In the result, these Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

Assistant Registrar (crl side)

¶30

// True Copy //

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶32

¶33

¶34

1.The Principal District Munsif, Eraniel.

¶35

2.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶36

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Manavalakurichy Police Station, Manavalakurichy, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶37

4.The District Environmental Engineer, Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board, Nagercoil.

¶38

+1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-91856[F] dated 15/10/2019 )

¶39

+1 CC to M/s.P.JESSI JEEVA PRIYA, Advocate ( SR-91827[F] dated 15/10/2019 )

¶40

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1176 of 2011

¶41

and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2011 14.10.2019

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ VB(05.11.2019) 3P 7C

¶43

3/3

The President, Natesar Alayam v. Rajendran S/O.Narayanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The President, Natesar Alayam v. Rajendran S/O.Narayanan

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

M.Divya Vs P.Muthukrishnan Alias Arun

V.Shanmugham Vs v.Gandhi

Amarkantak Farms Private Ltd. Vs Mr.G.Anilkumar

C.Ramasamy Vs Ponniya Nadar

Ramanathan Vs Muthan (Died)

D. Mareeswari Vs T.S.B. Vatchala