Disposed

Pandi Dorai.J v. Union of India

Madras HC13 Dec 2023WP(MD)/8416/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking removal of loudspeakers and stoppage of announcements by a church citing noise pollution. Court recorded a settlement proposed by the church and accepted the petitioner's consent to the terms, disposing of the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of based on agreed terms and consent; no costs awarded; connected petitions closed.

Pandi Dorai.J Vs Union of India — Madras HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.8416 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.12.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.8416 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.6351, 6352, 6346, 6350 of 2021

¶7

J.Pandi Dorai ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.XXXXX

¶10

2.XXXXX

¶11

3.XXXXX

¶12

4.XXXXX

¶13

5.XXXXX

¶14

6.XXXXX

¶15

7.The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, 30/2, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Pettai, Tirunelveli-627 010.

¶16

8.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Collectorate Campus, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli-627 009.

¶17

9.The Tahsildar, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶18

10.St.Paul's Church, Rep.by its Church Pastor, Rev.V.Kanthiah Nallapandi, N.G.O.'A' Colony, Tirunelveli District. ...Respondents [R1 to R6 were deleted vide order dated 23.04.2021]

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

1/5

¶21

W.P.(MD)No.8416 of 2021

¶22

PRAYER :

¶23

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent NO.5 to remove the unauthorized Amplifiers, Cone speakers and Loud Speakers installed in violation of nose Pollution Control and regulation Rules 2000 in the respondent No.10 Church premises and a consequent direction directing the respondent No.5 and 6 to forbear the respondent No. 10 from announcing time and Bible Phrases using loud speakers, within the time frame that may be fixed by this Court .

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Pandi Dorai Party in person For R8 & R9 : Ms.S.Jeyapriya Government Advocate For R7 : Ms.Vijaykumari Natarajan For R10 : Mr.G.Prabhurajadurai

¶25

O RDER

¶26

This writ petition was filed by the petitioner in person for a direction

¶27

to the fifth respondent to remove the Amplifiers, Cone speakers and Loud Speakers installed in violation of nose Pollution Control and Regulation Rules 2000 in the church premises by the tenth respondent. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the fifth and sixth respondents to stop the tenth respondent from announcing time and Bible phrases by using the loud speakers.

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

2/5

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.8416 of 2021

¶31

2.Considering the nature of grievance expressed by the petitioner, this

¶32

Court had directed the learned counsel for the tenth respondent to see if some settlement can be reached between the parties. The learned counsel submitted that he will take instructions from his client and will attempt to amicably resolve the dispute.

¶33

3.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the 10^th respondent has filed counter affidavit and the petitioner has also made an endorsement to the effect that he consents for the compromise that has been mentioned in the counter affidavit. For proper appreciation, the relevant portions in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:

¶34

“ 2............In any case considering the grievances expressed by the Petitioner, we mutually agree to the following terms to remove the inconvenience in the following terms:

¶35

(i) No speaker will be kept in close proximity of the compound wall of the Petitioner.

¶36

(ii) No cone speaker shall be installed or used.

¶37

(iii) The hourly announcement of the timing and bible verses shall already discontinued on permanent basis.

¶38

(iv) During Sunday service between 6 to 8 am and 8.30 am to 10.30 am and during the festivals viz., Christmas, New Year, Easter and Good Friday the capacity within the church would not allow all the worshippers and they have to assemble on either side and in the front yard of the church. Hence, in order to make the church service audible

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

3/5

¶41

W.P.(MD)No.8416 of 2021

¶42

to them box speakers shall be kept outside of the church building but within the compound wall. Such speakers would be placed in the front facing south. As the house of the Petitioner is on the northern side there will not be any inconvenience to the Petitioner and that the Petitioner agrees to such an agreement.

¶43

(v) The Respondent church shall take every effect to keep the decibel level within the prescribed limit.

¶44

I submit that the above steps taken by the Respondent

¶45

church will address the grievance of the Petitioner and the Respondent church shall maintain a good relation and cordiality with Petitioner and as well all people living in the locality.”

¶46

4.Recording the above, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶47

13.12.2023

¶48

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ta

¶49

¶50

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Collectorate Campus, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli-627 009.

¶51

2.The Tahsildar, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

4/5

¶54

W.P.(MD)No.8416 of 2021

¶55

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶56

¶57

W.P.(MD)No.8416 of 2021

¶58

13.12.2023

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

5/5

Pandi Dorai.J v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandi Dorai.J v. Union of India

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

Salome Christinol @ Salome Raja Vs the District Registrar

Pitchammal Vs The Revisional Authority/

Jayakumar.R Vs the Commissioner

Venkatraman.D Vs the Chairman

Leanpious Kumar Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

P.S.P.Edward Vs The Spl.Deputy Collector (Stamps)