IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22537 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.K.RAZACK, S/O. KABEER, KARAMKATTIL HOUSE, VADAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SMT.ASHA P.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678681. BY SR.. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.22537/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 2.8.11. P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 2.8.11. P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 27.8.03 IN WPC.27353/03. P4 COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DT 20.8.07. P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 16.8.07. P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 22.8.2008. P7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 21.8.09 P8 COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR VEHICLE NO.KL 9H 2525. P9 COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR VEHICLE NO.KL 10D 4289. P10 COPY OF THE LICENCE DT 26.7.10 FOR VEHICLE NO.KL 9H 2525. P11 COPY OF THE LICENCE DT 26.7.10 FOR VEHICLE NO.KL 10D 4289. // True Copy // P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 22537 of 2011 N ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ As in the previous years, this year also the petitioner has approached this Court, complaining that he has not been granted mike sanction. It is seen that in previous years, the petitioner obtained such sanctions pursuant to the judgments of this Court. 2. Exts.P1 and P2 are the applications made by the petitioner this year, seeking sanction for using sound systems which has been declined with the endorsement “not granted as it is for commercial and advertisement purposes”. There is no statute or executive order relied on in Exts.P1 and P2, enabling the respondent to deny sanction sought for by the petitioner only for the reason that the purpose is commercial and for advertisement. If that be so, the reason on which the application has been turned down is unsustainable. W.P.(C) No.22537/2011 : 2 : In that view, I direct that the respondent will consider the application made by the petitioner in the light of the provisions contained in the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control Rules) Kerala 2000 and orders on Exts.P1 and P2 will be passed, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within one week from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/19/08 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge