IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.1385 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
M/S. IMAGE EDUCATIONAL TRUST (R) PUTTUR, VINAYAKA COMPLEX, KAIKAMBA, B.C. ROAD-574 218, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI P.B. MOHAMMED SADIQUE.
(BY SRI T. I. ABDULLA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI SHAILESH SON OF SANJEEVA SALIAN, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT #13/81/A, BANTWAL MUDA, BANTWAL-574 201, DAKSHINA KANNADA.
... APPELLANT 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALURU-575 001, DAKSHINA KANNADA.
3. THE BANTWAL TOWN MUNICIPALITY BANTWAL-574 201, DAKSHINA KANNADA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM M., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI LAXMINARAYANA, AGA FOR R-2;
R-3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.35407 OF 2015 DATED 06.04.2016.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.35407 of 2015 dated 6-4-2016, in partly allowing the writ petition while directing the 3rd respondent not to use loud speakers in calling their faithful to prayer, the 3rd respondent has filed this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the restriction imposed by the learned Single Judge is incorrect. That they are entitled to use loud speakers while calling for prayers. The same is disputed by the learned Government Advocate. He submits that the issue at large is covered by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NOISE POLLUTION (V), IN RE vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in (2005)5 SCC 733.
3. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that the appropriate relief requires to be granted. The learned Single Judge has directed the 3rd respondent not to use the loudspeakers in calling their faithful to prayer and if there is any such disturbance the petitioner was granted leave to reopen the petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para - 175 on this issue pertaining to loudspeakers held as follows:-
“(ii) Loudspeakers 175. 1. The noise level at the boundary of the public place, where loudspeaker or public address system or any other noise source is being used shall not exceed 10 dB(A) above the ambient noise standards for the area or 75 dB(A) whichever is lower.
2. No one shall beat a drum or tom-tom or blow a trumpet or beat or sound any instrument or use any sound amplifier at night (between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.) except in public emergencies.
3. The peripheral noise level of privately - owned sound system shall not exceed by more than 5 dB(A) than the ambient air-quality standard specified for the area in which it is used, at the boundary of the private place.”
Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant and the respondents are bound by the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Judgment. Hence, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge not to use loud speakers in calling their faithful to prayer is set aside. However, the appellant and the respondents shall strictly abide by the directions issued at para 175 of the aforesaid Judgment of the Supreme Court.
Writ Appeal is disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Rsk/-