IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3672 of 2010(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C.K. BHARATHAN, AGED 72, S/O.K.SUKUMARAN, HARSHAM, NETTOOR P.O., THALASSERY, PIN-670 105. BY ADV. MR.P.K.IBRAHIM, MR.C.N.GOPAKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THALASSERY. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALASSERY. 5. MANIYATH SAJEEVAN, CHAIRMAN, ORGANISING COMMITTEE, JUNIOR CHAMBERS AND AGRI-HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY, THALASSERY, MANIYATH HOUSE, P.O.VADUKKUMPAD, THALASSERY-5. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K. RAMESH. R5 BY ADV. MR.P.V.SURENDRANATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 3672/2010-H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/06/2009 PASSED BY THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPORT APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DATED 29/01/2010. EXT.P3(a): COPY OF THE PETITION ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21/01/2010. EXT.P3(b): COPY OF THE PETITION ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28/01/2010. EXT.P3(c): COPY OF THE PETITION ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05/01/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(a): COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE DY. S.P. THALASSERY. EXT.R5(b): COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY TELLICHERY CO-OP. HOSPITAL DATED 04/02/2010. EXT.R5(c): COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY THE COMT. EYE HOSPITAL DATED 29/01/2010. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.3672/2010-H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, representing the Citizen Right Forum, Thalassery, filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to cancel the permission granted to the fifth respondent for using the public addressing system for the conduct of Flower Show at the City Centre Complex, Thalassery which was scheduled to be held on 05/02/2010 to 15th of this month. 2. Mainly it was contended that under the guise of Flower Show, many sport events, dramas, cinematic dances, musical events etc. will be hosted in the compound of the City Centre Complex. There are so many institutions and hospitals within 100 metres of the City Centre Complex. There is a Government High School also nearby. Accordingly, the petitioner has highlighted the fact that there will be nuisance such as sound pollution if uncontrolled permission is granted to have the mike system. 3. The fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the flower show is being conducted under the joint auspices of junior chambers and Agri-Horticultural Society, Thalassery for raising fund for JC Special School for mentally challenged/retarded pupils. It is organised W.P.(C). No.3672/2010 -:2:- by a committee consisting of high dignitaries and very important personalities. It is stated that along with flower show, competition for students in various items of performance in art and music are also conducted. It is not at all a commercial venture. There is no ganamela or cinematic dance by way of competition etc.. The proposal to include cinematic dance was dropped as per the restriction in the mike permission issued by the police. Even though, in the brochure so many items were included, all of them were not proposed to be conducted. The allegation that the patients in the various hospitals will be affected, by the conduct of the same, is also denied. It is stated that they are not within 300 meters of the site. Ext.R5(a) is the permit issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the matter. Exts.R5(b) and R5 (c) are no-objection certificates issued from various hospitals. 4. When the matter came up for admission, this Court passed an interim order on 05/02/2010 directing the third respondent to ensure that the public address system will not go beyond the limits to which permission has been granted already. That was being followed, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent. W.P.(C). No.3672/2010 -:3:- 5. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that the show will be over today and the conditions prescribed in Ext.R5(a) have been scrupulously followed. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the condition No.b in Ext.R5(a) was not properly followed. This Court cannot venture into any such disputed aspects. It is clear that by Ext.R5(a), so many conditions have been imposed by the police and there cannot be any failure of statutory duty in that regard. As it is reported that the conditions in the permit have been followed in its letter and spirit, no further orders are called for in the writ petition and the same is closed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms