IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1244 of 2006(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PUTHENVEETTIL NAGAR KAVU TRUST, CHITTATTUMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, POURNAMI, CHITTATTUMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.D.SAJEEV SMT.S.B.JAYARESMI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOCHAN ROAD, SASTAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER. 3. O.GEETHA, PROPRIETRIX, GEETANJALI AYURVEDA MADOM, CHITTATTTUMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.REKHA C.NAIR, R2 BY ADVS.MR.JAMES KURIAN, SC,POLLUTION C.BOARD R2 BY MR.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,POLU.C. R3 BY MR.P.B.SURESH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2009 THE COURT ON 04/01/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.1244/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 9.6.03 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 20.9.03 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT . P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 27.10.2003. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25.6.04 IN WPC. NO.210/04. P5:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 31.7.04. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 15.2.05. P7:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT NO.S9/41847/03 DTD. 17.2.05. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 3.3.05. P9:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 13.10.05 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.15431/05. P10:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.S9/38680/05 DTD. 19.12.05 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. P11:- COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DTD. 4.3.06. P12:- COPY OF THE PROGRAMME NOTICE OF THE PRADISHTA MAHOLSAVAM OF THE PETITIONER DT. NIL. P13:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 14.3.06 FILED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P14:- COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DTD. 24.2.07. P15:- COPY OF THE PROGRAMME NOTICE OF THE PRADISHTA MAHOLSAVAM OF THE PETITIONER. P16:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 30.1.07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P17:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 3.3.07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P18:- COPY OF THE RDER DTD. 6.4.06 IN IA. NO.5195/06 IN WPC. 1244/06. P19:- COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA OF 19.6.07. W.P.(C) NO.1244/2006 P20:- COPY OF THE PROGRAMME NOTICE OF THE KANNI AILYA MAHOLSAVAM 2007 OF THE PETITIONER. P21:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 14.5.07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P22:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 16.4.07 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. P23:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 6.4.06 IN IA. 5195/06 IN WPC. NO.1244/06. P24:- COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT DTD. 3.4.07 IN WPC. 1244/06. P25:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25.9.06 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P26:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20.9.07 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. I.A. NO.12151/2008 P24:- COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DTD. 21.8.08. P25:- COPY OF THE PROGRAMME NOTICE OF THE KANNI AILYA MAHOLSAVAM 2008 OF THE PETITIONER. P26:- COPY OF THE APPLCATION DTD. 6.7.08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P27:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 16.4.07 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. P28:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 6.4.06 IN IA. NO.5195/06 IN WPC. 1244/06. P29:- COPY OF THE PROGRAM SCHEDULE FROM 7.5.09 TO 8.5.09. P30:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 28.1.09 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P31:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 6.4.06 IN IA. 5195/06 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a):- COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO DR.GOPIKA RAMANAN BY THE FACULTY OF AYURVEDA, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, DTD. 24.7.1989. R3(b):- COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN COUNCIL OF INDIGENOUS MEDICINE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT, 1953, DTD. 6.4.1987. W.P(C) NO.1244/2006 R3(c):- COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY , KADINAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT FOR THE YEAR 2005-06, DTD. 1.4.05. R3(d):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF PROFESSIONAL TAX, DTD. 31.3.05. R3(e):- COPY OF THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE HOSPITAL FOR THE YEAR 2003- 04 FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES DTD. 23.8.04. R3(f):- COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE HOSPITAL FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES DTD. 23.8.04. R3(g):- COPY OF THE RETURN OF THE HOSPITAL FOR THE EYAR 2003-04 FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES DTD. 23.8.04. R3(h):- COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD DTD. 4.5.05. R3(i):- THE CASE SHEET OF THE INPATIENT TREATED AT HOSPITAL OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. R3(j):- COPY OF THE SHEET OF THE INPATIENT TREATED AT HOSPITAL OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. R3(k):- COPY OF THE SHEET OF THE INPATIENT TREATED AT HOSPITAL OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. R3(l):- COPY OF THE ARTICLE ABOUT THE HOSPITAL THAT APPEARED IN THE HINDU DTD. 12.6.2000. R3(m):-COP TRUST DEED NO.16701/1/02 EXECUTED FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE AFORESAID SARPAKAVU DTD. 15.6.02. R3(n):- COPY OF THE SHOWING THE INSTALLATION OF BOX SPEAKERS ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE HOSPITAL PREMISES. R3(o):- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION G.O.(P) NO.64/02, DTD. 20.4.02. R3(p):- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DTD. 3.10.07. R3(q):- COPY OF THE IST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.126/07 OF KADINAMKULAM POLICE STATION DTD. 5.10.07. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.1244 OF 2006 ------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The issue involved in this writ petition is regarding usage of loud speakers (Amplified Public System) for playing devotional songs in connection with poojas conducted in a “Sarpa Kavu” owned and maintained by the petitioner Trust. The parties are on their 4th round of litigation before this court, on this issue, challenging various orders issued by the first respondent, District Collector under the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation And Control) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). 2. A brief history of the case is as follows. The “Puthenveettil Nagarkavu” is an ancient temple wherein a number of worshipers are attending poojas. Devotional songs were played during morning and evening time using loud speakers. The 3rd respondent is conducting an Ayurvedic hospital in the neighbouring property under the name and style “Geethanjali Ayuveda Madam”. Husband of the 3rd respondent is a qualified Ayuveda Physician and is a registered medical practitioner. Grievance of the 3rd respondent is that during W.P.(C).1244/06-W 2 June 2003 the petitioner Trust installed three loud speakers at a height of about 40 Feet and started playing devotional songs between 5 a.m. to 7 a.m. in the morning and between 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. in the evening, causing nuisance and disturbance for conduct of the Ayurvedic Hospital, causing health problems to the patients therein and putting life of the 3rd respondent and her family miserable. The 3rd respondent submitted Ext.P1 complaint to the District Collector pointing out that, as per notification issued by the State Government under Rule 3(2) of the above said Rules, the area comprising not less than 100 Meter around educational institutions and hospitals are declared as “silence zone” and hence usage of loud speakers in such areas is prohibited. 3. During pendency of Ext.P1 the 3rd respondent approached this Court and the 1st respondent was directed to pass orders on Ext.P1 complaint, after hearing all parties concerned. The petitioner objected the allegations in the complaint. A report of the 2nd respondent, Pollution Control Board, was obtained as per Ext.P2 in which it is stated that on monitoring the area, sound level was noticed as 58.5 dB(A) and the background sound level as 57.6 dB(A). On the basis of Ext.P2 report the 1st respondent issued Ext.P3 permitting usage of loud speakers, imposing restrictions as recommended in the W.P.(C).1244/06-W 3 report such as ban on usage during night from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. and prohibition from modifying amplifier system or increasing sound level from 58.5 dB(A). 4. Ext.P3 was challenged before this Court in a writ petition. In Ext.P4 interim order this court observed that, as per the said Rules the authority concerned to take decision on the complaint regarding excessive noise, is the District Collector and/or police officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Therefore the order issued by the 1st respondent to obey directions of the Pollution Control Board is not justified. Hence the 1st respondent was directed to look into grievance of the 3rd respondent as authorised under the said Rules, either by himself of through any competent police officer. Based on Ext.P4 interim order, the 1st respondent called for a report of the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Attingal, who in turn reported that the grievance of the 3rd respondent is true and genuine and that usage of loud speakers is not essential for operation of the temple. Based on that report Ext.P5 order was issued by the 5th respondent, cancelling Ext.P3 proceedings. 5. Against Ext.P5, the petitioner submitted various representations before the District Collector and before the Government. The 1st respondent thereupon obtained Ext.P6, which is a further report from the Pollution Control Board. The W.P.(C).1244/06-W 4 noise level was reported as 59dB(A) and the background noise as 55.1 dB(A). But without considering Ext.P6 report of the Pollution Control Board the 1st respondent again issued Ext.P7 order banning usage of mike in the premises of the temple. The said order was issued on the basis of a further report obtained from the Dy. Superintendent of Police dt: 27.1.2005. 6. Eventhough the petitioner submitted request on 21.2.2005 seeking re-consideration of Ext.P7, it was rejected through Ext.P8 stating that the decision taken in this regard cannot be re-considered. The petitioner thereupon filed WP(C). 15431/05 challenging Ext.P7 and P8. In Ext.P9 Judgment this Court set aside Ext.P7 and Ext.P8, holding that under Rule 8(2) of the above said Rules the District Collector was bound to consider a review sought for with respect to any order passed under Rule 8(1) and the District Collector ought to have heard the petitioner under Rule 8(2), before disposing any such petition for review. Hence the 1st respondent was directed to hear the petitioner and the 3rd respondent afresh and to take a decision in the matter within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. 7. In compliance with the directions contained in Ext.P9 Judgment the 1st respondent heard both the parties and conducted a site inspection. After considering all aspects of the W.P.(C).1244/06-W 5 matter Ext.P10 order was issued confirming ban on usage of loud speakers. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P10 order. 8. Heard, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent, and also the Government Pleader. Contention of the petitioner is that in Ext.P10 the 1st respondent inspite of specific direction in Ext.P9 had only revived its earlier order Ext.P7, which was already quashed by this Court. Therefore the decision is arbitrary and without application of mind. A legal contention was also raised to the effect that Ext.P1 complaint itself was not maintainable in view of Rule 7(1) of the above said Rules, because such a complaint is maintainable only in cases where the noise level exceeds the 'ambient noise standards' by 10 dB(A) or more, whereas in this case the measurements taken on two occasions by the 2nd respondent revealed that the ambient noise standard was not exceeded by 10 dB(A). It is also contended that the reasoning stated in Ext.P10 order to the effect that the 3rd respondent was not ready to allow playing of music even at reduced volume, is not a justifiable ground to impose total ban on the use. Findings in Ext.P10 are without any scientific basis but on the other hand there are reports available from the 2nd respondent regarding measurement of the sound level, which were not taken note of W.P.(C).1244/06-W 6 while deciding the issue, is the contention. 9. The 3rd respondent contended in their counter affidavit that the Ayurvedic Hospital is run under proper registration and under licence from the Local Authority. It is contended that the hospital is well-known for specialised treatment for arthritis, paralysis, stroke and disorder regarding spinal cord and a lot of patients from different parts of the country, including foreigners are coming for treatment in that hospital. It is contended that the hospital has got very good reputation and excellence in its treatment and care had been admired through various articles published in different newspapers and periodicals. It is contended that the Trust was formed only on 15.6.2002 by virtue of Ext.R3(m) Deed, and conduct of “Poojas” and playing of devotional songs through loud speakers started only in June 2003, whereas the hospital is functioning therein from the year 2001 onwards. Complaint of the 3rd respondent is that the loud speakers are established at a height of 25 Ft: just on the boundary of the property of the hospital, facing to one of its buildings, and later the loud speakers were replaced with Box speakers. Ext.P1 complaint was constrained to be filed due to severe sound pollution experienced which resulted in nuisance, irritation, health hazards and discomforts to the patients as well as to the family W.P.(C).1244/06-W 7 members of the 3rd respondent. 10. The 3rd respondent had pointed out Ext.R3(o) notification issued by the State Government, as early as on 20.4.2002, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 3(2) of the above said Rules. It classifies the entire State into two categories, viz; areas covered under the Town Planning Scheme and areas not covered under the Town Planning Scheme. As per Ext.R3(o) notification, areas covering upto 100 Meter around hospitals, educational institutions and religious places are declared as 'silence zone'. Playing of music using sound amplifier is prohibited in the 'silence zone' as per Rule 6 of the above said Rule. It is further contended that an educational institution namely St. Vincent High School is also situated in the area, within 100 Meters from the temple in question. Therefore it is clear and evident that the area in question is a 'silence zone' where usage of amplifier and loud speakers are totally prohibited as per Rule 6 of the above said Rules. It is also contended that there have been no custom or practice in the State to play devotional songs using amplifier at “Sarppakkavus”. The 3rd respondent had pointed out various decisions of this Court on the subject of noise pollution, emphasising needs to take measures to curb nuisance arising out of noise pollution, highlighting the health hazards and other diseases caused out of the sound W.P.(C).1244/06-W 8 pollution. It is contended that the petitioner Trust has no fundamental right to use such sound amplifier system causing nuisance and health hazards. On the other hand such usage of loud speakers creating noise exceeding the ambient sound level declared in a 'silence zone' is definitely violative of the fundamental rights of the 3rd respondent. 11. It is noticed that during pendency of the above writ petition the writ petitioner had approached this Court on various occasions seeking directions for usage of loud speakers for conduct of festivals like, “Punaprathishta”, “Thiru Ayilya Maholsavam”, “Annual Prathishta Maholsavam”, “Vishnu Maholsavam”, etc.: On most of the occasions this Court directed the District Collector to take appropriate decisions. It is noticed that on 3.10.2007 the District Collector permitted usage of public address system, from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. from 4.10.2007 to 6.10.2007, through Ext.R3(p) order, incorporating strict conditions to maintain ambient air quality standard not exceeding 50dB(A) using sound box without making nuisance. The Circle Inspector of police as well as the Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board was directed to monitor usage and to take action as per the provisions of the Environment Protection Act and above said Rules in case of violation. Further in September 2000 also the petitioner was W.P.(C).1244/06-W 9 granted permission to use loud speakers for two days upon similar conditions. In the counter affidavit filed by 3rd respondent in I.A.No:4466/2009, it is stated that inspite of stringent conditions the petitioners had used loud speakers for conducting various cultural programmes like, Mimics Parade, Cinematic Dance, Drama, etc.: throughout the night and inspite of intervention of the Sub Inspector such violation continued even at 11.30 night. It is revealed that a criminal case was registered in this regard against the President and Secretary of the petitioner Trust, for offences punishable under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act read with Rule 9 and Section 834 and Section 18, 38 and 52 of the Police Act. It is further stated that during September 2008 also there occurred violation of the conditions incorporated in the permission granted, and a similar case was registered as Crime No:101/08. Hence, according to the 3rd respondent, the attempt of the petitioner is to use the public address system in violation of all statutory provisions and directions of the competent authorities, with an oblique motive to cause perpetual nuisance to the 3rd respondent and for conduct of the hospital. 12. On a perusal of relevant provisions it is noticed that the ambient air quality standards in respect of different areas/zones are specified in the schedule annexed to the Rules. W.P.(C).1244/06-W 10 As per the schedule, the ambient air quality with respect to the 'silence zone' is 50 dB(A) during day time and 40 dB(A) during night time. As per Rule 3(2) the State Government is authorised to categorise areas into different zones like, industrial, commercial, residential or silence, for the purpose of implementation of noise standards. As per Rule 3(5) an area comprising not less than 100 Meter around hospital, educational institutions and courts can be declared as silence area/zone, for the purpose of the said Rules. Ext. R3(o) is the notification issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub Rule 2 of Rule 3. By virtue of the said notification, the entire State has been categorised into two groups, viz, areas covered under Town Planning Schemes and areas not covered under Town Planning Schemes. Different category of areas/zones based on the predominant use of land is classified under the said notification. In this case the area concerned, being one coming within the local limits of a Grama Panchayat, within the second group not covered under Town Planning Scheme. Serial No:4 is the 'silence zone' which is classified as areas comprising 100 Meters around hospitals, educational institutions and courts as defined in the said Rules and religious places, reserve forests, wild life sanctuaries and any other areas which the Government of Kerala notifies from W.P.(C).1244/06-W 11 time to time. As per Rule 6 playing of any music or use of any sound amplifier within places covered under the 'silence zone' is considered as an offence and the same is made liable for penalty under the provisions of the Act. 13. It is further noticed that, as per Rule 8 the authority defined under Rule 2(c) is empowered to take necessary actions, to prevent annoyance, disturbance or discomforts or injury or the risk of annoyance, discomforts, disturbance or injury to any public or to any person who dwells or occupy property on the vicinity, and to prevent or prohibit or control or regulate the incidence or continuance of usage of loud speakers or public address systems. The authority can take such action if it is satisfied from any report received from an officer in charge of a police station or on receipt of any other information. As per Section 8(2) the authority has got power to rescind or modify or alter any such order issued, on its own motion or on the basis of any application received from any person aggrieved by such order. 14. On the basis of the provisions stated above, it is contended by learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that the area in question is a 'silence zone' notified, wherein usage of loud speakers is totally banned. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner confronted the above proposition W.P.(C).1244/06-W 12 based on the arguments that, the Ayurvedic Hospital of the 3rd respondent is not a hospital coming within the definition contained in the Rules and the notification. It is evident from the documents produced along with the counter affidavit that the hospital is run by a qualified physician who has got registration as a Medical Practitioner and the hospital is having registration and licence from the local authority. Contention of the 3rd respondent that the 'Sarppakkavu' in question is within 100 Meter of an educational institution, is also not seen disputed. Therefore it can reasonably be concluded that the area concerned is a 'silence zone' notified under the provisions of the Rules, wherein usage of loud speakers is prohibited and is declared as an offence under the provisions of the Rules. 15. Further it is to be noted that the power vested with the authority under Rule 8 seems to be a power independent of the classification of zones and is independent of consideration of the ambient noise standards. Rule 8(1) empowers the authority to take action to prevent annoyance, disturbance or discomforts or injury or risk of annoyance, disturbance, discomforts or injury to the public or to any person, who dwells or occupy property, if such authority is satisfied that such prevention is necessary. In the case at hand the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent on the basis of Ext.P1 complaint can only be construed as an W.P.(C).1244/06-W 13 exercise of the power under Rule 8(1) and the subsequent re- consideration of the order as an exercise of powers under Rule 8 (2). The 1st respondent while exercising such power can arrive at subjective satisfaction as to whether the usage of loud speaker or public address system will cause annoyance, disturbance, discomfort, or injury to public or any other person. In this case the 1st respondent had taken the decision based on reports obtained from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, on more than one occasion. Further the decision is based on his personal satisfaction after conducting site visit. Apart from that the scientific reports obtained from the 2nd respondent on two occasions revealed that the noise level at the time of usage of loud speakers was 59 dB(A) and 58.5 dB(A). Going by schedule to the Rules, the ambient air quality standards at silence zone is 50 dB(A) during day time and 40dB(A) during night time. Further as per Rule 6 usage of loud speakers at silence zone is totally banned. 16. Under these circumstances Ext.P10 order does not suffers from illegalities, infirmities or irregularities. Since the order is issued by the 1st respondent after taking note of the reports and after being personally satisfied of the situation on the basis of site inspection conducted and since the order is passed after affording opportunity of personal hearing to both W.P.(C).1244/06-W 14 sides, I am of the firm opinion that Ext.P10 cannot be termed as one issued in violation of any of the directions contained in Ext.P9 Judgment. Merely because of the statement in the conclusive portion of Ext.P10 that, the 1st respondent is reviving and confirming an earlier order which was set aside by this court, it cannot be said that there is non-application of mind or non-compliance of the directions of this Court. 17. Under these circumstances I am inclined to hold that Ext.P10 is perfectly legal, proper and valid. I find no ground to interfere with the factual findings arrived therein, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb/-