Disposed¶56

Kamaraj v. Vs The District Collector

Writ Petition (Mandamus) – Noise Pollution

Madras HC20 Jan 2026WP(MD)/35224/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Noise pollution; cone type horn loudspeaker; prohibited loudspeaker without permission or licence; box type speaker beyond permissible decibel limit; loudspeaker use subject to due permission; Writ of Mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; CSI Immanuel Church, Aladipatti; Virudhunagar district; Thiruchuli police; direction to respondents 1 to 7; writ petition disposed; no costs; 20.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed with a direction to respondents 1 to 7 to ensure that the 8th respondent uses speakers only after obtaining due permission and within the permissible decibel limit, and to take necessary action immediately in case of any violation; no order as to costs. ¶56

Kamaraj v Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether a Writ of Mandamus should issue directing respondents 1 to 7 to take appropriate action against the 8th respondent for creating noise pollution by using a prohibited cone type horn loudspeaker without permission or licence. +1 more

¶49

Court's answer

If there is any violation of the permission/decibel conditions, the respondents 1 to 7 are to take necessary action immediately.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed respondents 1 to 7 to ensure that the use of speaker by the 8th respondent is only after getting due permission and within the permissible decibel limit.

¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Mandamus) — Noise Pollution — Loudspeaker use without permission/licence. V.Kamaraj filed W.P.(MD) No.35224 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing official respondents (District Collector to Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar/Thiruchuli) to take action against the 8th respondent, Rev.V.Ebinezar Paul Thomas, Administrator of CSI Immanuel Church, who allegedly created noise pollution by using a prohibited cone type horn loudspeaker without permission or licence. After notice, the learned Government Pleader informed the Court that enquiry was conducted, the cone type speaker was removed, and only box type speakers, permissible under law, were being used. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the box type speaker caused noise pollution beyond the permissible limit and was used without permission. Considering the submissions, the Division Bench (order made by Dr. G. Jayachandran, J.) disposed of the Writ Petition directing respondents 1 to 7 to ensure that the 8th respondent's use of speaker is only after getting due permission and within the permissible decibel limit, and that any violation be acted upon immediately. No order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.35224 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.01.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.35224 of 2025

V.Kamaraj

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The District Collector,

¶13

District Collectorate,

¶14

Virudhunagar.

¶15

2.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District,

¶16

Virudhunagar.

¶17

3.The District Pollution Control Officer, District Pollution Control Board, No.23, Master Plan Area,

¶18

Sathur Road, Collectorate,

¶19

Virudhunagar – 626 002.

¶20

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶21

Revenue Divisional Office,

¶22

_____________ Page 1 of 7_

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.35224 of 2025

¶25

Aruppukottai,

¶26

Virudhunagar District.

¶27

5.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶28

6.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchuli Sub-Division,

¶29

Thiruchuli,

¶30

Virudhunagar District.

¶31

7.The Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, Thiruchuli,

¶32

Virudhunagar District.

¶33

8.Rev.V.Ebinezar Paul Thomas,

¶34

Administrator,

¶35

CSI Immanuel Church,

¶36

East Street, Aladipatti – 626 129. Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶37

... Respondents

¶38

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 7 herein to take

¶39

_____________ Page 2 of 7_

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.35224 of 2025

¶42

appropriate action against the 8^th respondent who is creating noise pollution by using prohibited cone type horn loudspeaker without getting any permission or licence, within the stipulated period that may be fixed by this Court.

¶43

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Senthilkumar For Respondents 1, 4 & 5 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar,

¶44

Government Pleader

¶45

For Respondents 2, 6 & 7 : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran,

¶46

Government Advocate [Crl. Side] For Respondent No.3 : Ms.Madhuri Donti Reddy For Respondent No.8 : Ms.Jasima Yasmin for M/s.Ajmal Associates

¶47

O R D E R

¶48

[Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

¶49

Writ Petition is filed seeking Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 7 to take appropriate action against the 8^th respondent, who is allegedly causing noise pollution by using cone type horn loudspeaker in the church premises.

¶50

2. After notice, learned Government Pleader informed the Court that enquiry was conducted and the cone type speaker used by the 8^th

¶51

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.(MD) No.35224 of 2025

¶54

respondent removed and they are using only box type speakers which is permissible under law.

¶55

3. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the noise pollution caused by the 8^th respondent using the box type speaker is beyond the permissible limit and the same is used without getting any permission from the authorities.

¶56

4. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respective parties, we dispose of this Writ Petition with the direction that the respondents 1 to 7 shall ensure that the use of speaker by the 8^th respondent is only after getting due permission and within the permissible decibel limit and if there is any violation, necessary action to be taken immediately. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

[G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.]

¶58

20.01.2026

¶59

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No MR

¶60

_____________ Page 4 of 7_

¶61

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

¶62

W.P.(MD) No.35224 of 2025

¶63

¶64

1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Virudhunagar.

¶65

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

¶66

3.The District Pollution Control Officer, District Pollution Control Board, No.23, Master Plan Area, Sathur Road, Collectorate, Virudhunagar – 626 002.

¶67