SACHIN KASHYAP & ORS. versus SUSHIL CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA & ORS. on 15 July 2021

ORDER

Permission to file Special Leave Petition(s) is granted.

Delay condoned.

Intervention/impleadment applications stand allowed.

Interlocutory Application No. 167927 of 2019 for deleting theproforma respondents No. 4 to 11 from the array of the parties standsallowed at the risk of the appellants.

Leave granted.

For the sake of convenience, we are taking up Civil Appeal No.2691 of 2021 arising out of SLP(C) No.24806/2019 as lead matter anddisposing of all the connected appeals by this common order.

This appeal is filed by non-parties in the Writ Petition who were,though directly affected, neither impleaded before the High Court asparties nor was there any prayer for issuance of such directions bywhich they are aggrieved.

ABrief facts of this case are that respondents No. 1 and 2 had fileda Writ Petition before the High Court with the following prayers:- “(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamuscommanding the respondent authority to remove L.C.D. fromHashimpur Chauraha, Prayagraj immediately.

B(ii) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the natureas this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the endsof justice under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

(iii) to award cost of writ petition to the petitioners.”

While considering the said prayers, the High Court issued 9Cdirections in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment dated 20.08.2019.The appellants are aggrieved by direction No. (iii) issued by theHigh Court, which is extracted below:- “(iii) Under the Rules, 2000, no permission for DJ shall be grantedby the authority for the reason that noise generated by DJ isDunpleasant and obnoxious level. Even if they are operated at theminimum level of the sound it is beyond permissible limits underthe Schedule of the Rules, 2000. A DJ is made up of severalamplifiers and joint sound emitted by them is more than thousanddB (A). They are serious threat to human health particularlyEchildren, senior citizens and patients admitted in the hospitals.”

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that inthe entire Writ Petition there were neither any pleadings with regard tothe noise generated by the DJ being unpleasant and of obnoxious levelnor there was any such prayer made in the Writ Petition. The reliefFgranted by the High Court with regard to the removal of L.C.D. fromthe particular area in question, which was a separate issue, and appellantshave no grievance regarding the same. The appellants are only aggrievedby the direction no.(iii) issued in relation to a matter which was not anissue before the High Court.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is thatGthey have a right to play music in public places only after obtaining licensefrom the District Authority under the relevant Noise Pollution(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. It is contended that by imposingsuch restriction as contained in the aforesaid direction no.(iii) issued bythe High Court, the livelihood of the appellants is affected and hit byHArticle 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents No. 1 and2 (Writ Petitioners before the High Court) has submitted that thoughthere was no such prayer with regard to the playing of music (DJ) inpublic place, and the Writ Petition was limited only to playing of L.C.D.in the particular area, yet such directions could have been issued underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India by expanding the scope of theWrit Petition.

Ms. Garima Prasad, learned Additional Advocate Generalappearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh and Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi,learned counsel appearing for the Allahabad Development Authority havesubmitted that they are duty bound to comply with the directions issuedby the High Court, and in compliance of the aforesaid direction no.(iii),the State Government as well as the Allahabad Development Authorityare not permitting the parties to play DJ, except in those cases wherethe stay order has been granted by this Court and the parties have obtainednecessary permission.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering thefacts of this case, we are of the clear opinion that since there wereneither pleadings nor any prayer with regard to the playing of music orDJ in public place, the direction no.(iii) of the High Court, as quotedherein above with regard to the noise generated by DJ and restriction onplaying music, cannot be justified in law. The Writ Petition having beenfiled for a particular cause and with a particular prayer cannot beexpanded to cover within its ambit all the issues which may be of generalor public importance without there being any pleadings or prayer withregard to a particular issue. In our view, no such directions could havebeen issued, especially in a private litigation which was not in the natureof Public Interest Litigation. We say so, particularly, because prior topassing any such order of public importance, the affected parties shouldbe impleaded, at least in a representative capacity, which is not done inthe present case. The appellants herein are the affected parties whowere neither impleaded nor given any opportunity to present their case.

As such, while quashing the direction no.(iii) in the impugnedjudgment of the High Court, as quoted herein above, we make it clearthat the appellants or any other such persons may be permitted to playthe music/DJ only in accordance with law and after obtaining the requisitelicense/permission from the concerned authorities. Ordered accordingly.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2021] 6 S.C.R.

AWith the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands allowed to theextent indicated above.

In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 2691 of 2021arising out of SLP(C) No.24806/2019, the other connected appeals standallowed, accordingly.

B

Nidhi Jain

Appeals allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H