SACHIN KASHYAP & ORS. versus SUSHIL CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA & ORS.
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 486, Supreme Court of India, 2021
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
SACHIN KASHYAP & ORS.
v.
SUSHIL CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal  No(s). 2691 of 2021)
JULY 15, 2021
[VINEET SARAN AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Pleadings: Non-impleadment of affected parties in the writ
petition before the High Court – Issuance of direction by High Court
in writ petition, without there being any pleading or prayer with
regard to a particular issue – Effect of – On facts, writ Petition
before the High Court seeking issuance of direction to the respondent
authority to remove L.C.D. from the area – Direction by the High
Court that under the 2000 Rules, no permission for DJ to be granted
by the authority since the noise generated by DJ is unpleasant and
obnoxious level – On appeal, held: Since there were neither
pleadings nor any prayer with regard to the playing of music or DJ
in public place, the direction of the High Court, with regard to the
noise generated by DJ and restriction on playing music, not justified
– Writ Petition having been filed for a particular cause and with a
particular prayer, cannot be expanded to cover within its ambit all
the issues which may be of general or public importance without
there being any pleadings or prayer with regard to a particular
issue – No such directions could have been issued, especially in a
private litigation which was not in the nature of Public Interest
Litigation – Prior to passing any such order of public importance,
the affected parties should be impleaded, at least in a representative
capacity –
Appellants are the affected parties who were neither
impleaded nor given any opportunity to present their case – Direction
by the High Court is quashed – Appellants or any other such persons
may be permitted to play the music/DJ only in accordance with law
and after obtaining the requisite license/permission from the
concerned authorities – Constitution of India – Noise Pollution
(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 486
486
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 2691
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ C. No. 1216 of 2019.
With
Civil appeal no(s). 2701, 2692, 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697, 2698,
2699, 2700, 2702, 2703, 2704, and 2705 of 2021
Ms. Garima Prasad. Sr. AAG, S. R. Singh, Arvind Varma, Sr.
Advs., Ankur Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Krishna Kumar Yadav, Pramod
Kumar, Jabar Singh, Arvind Yadav, Dr. Amardeep Gaur, M/S. V.
Maheshwari & Co., Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Ramjee Pandey, Raghvendra
Shukla, Dhananjaya Kumar Tyagi, Satbir Singh Pillania, Sandiv Kalia,
Ms. Reena Rao, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Himanshu Tyagi, Amit Wadhwa,
Shailesh Singh, Pramod Tiwari, Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Dr. Vinod Kumar
Tewari, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Vivek Sarin, Satish C. Kaushik, Aakarshan
Aditya, Dushyant Parashar, Dinesh Pandey, Manu Parashar, Amrendra
Kumar Singh, Anand Mishra, Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi, Shashibhushan
P. Adgaonkar, Pradeep Misra, Suraj Singh, Satish Pandey, Abdul Qadir,
Gulfeshan Javed, Gulshan Jahan, Ninanda Nair, Ms. Parul Shukla, Ajitesh
Soni, E. C. Agrawala, Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Advs. for the
appearing parties.
The Order of the Court was passed :
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 the
proforma respondents No. 4 to 11 from the array of the parties stands
allowed 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 and
disposing 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 as
parties nor was there any prayer for issuance of such directions by
which they are aggrieved.
SACHIN KASHYAP v. SUSHIL CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
488
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
Brief facts of this case are that respondents No. 1 and 2 had filed
a Writ Petition before the High Court with the following prayers:-
“(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent authority to remove L.C.D. from
Hashimpur Chauraha, Prayagraj immediately.
(ii) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the nature
as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends
of 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 9
directions in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment dated 20.08.2019.
The appellants are aggrieved by direction No. (iii) issued by the
High Court, which is extracted below:-
“(iii) Under the Rules, 2000, no permission for DJ shall be granted
by the authority for the reason that noise generated by DJ is
unpleasant and obnoxious level. Even if they are operated at the
minimum level of the sound it is beyond permissible limits under
the Schedule of the Rules, 2000. A DJ is made up of several
amplifiers and joint sound emitted by them is more than thousand
dB (A). They are serious threat to human health particularly
children, senior citizens and patients admitted in the hospitals.”
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in
the entire Writ Petition there were neither any pleadings
with regard to
the noise generated by the DJ being unpleasant and of obnoxious level
nor there was any such prayer made in the Writ Petition. The relief
granted by the High Court with regard to the removal of L.C.D. from
the particular area in question, which was a separate issue, and appellants
have no grievance regarding the same. The appellants are only aggrieved
by the direction no.(iii) issued in relation to a matter which was not an
issue before the High Court.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that
they have a right to play music in public places only after obtaining license
from the District Authority under the relevant Noise Pollution
(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. It is contended that by imposing
such restriction as contained in the aforesaid direction no.(iii) issued by
the High Court, the livelihood of the appellants is affected and hit by
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
489
Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents No. 1 and
2 (Writ Petitioners before the High Court) has submitted that though
there was no such prayer with regard to the playing of music (DJ) in
public 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 under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India by expanding the scope of the
Writ Petition.
Ms. Garima Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh and Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi,
learned counsel appearing for the Allahabad Development Authority have
submitted that they are duty bound to comply with the directions issued
by the High Court, and in compliance of the aforesaid direction no.(iii),
the State Government as well as the Allahabad Development Authority
are not permitting the parties to play DJ, except in those cases where
the stay order has been granted by this Court and the parties have obtained
necessary permission.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the
facts of this case, we are of the clear opinion that since there were
neither pleadings nor any prayer with regard to the playing of music or
DJ in public place, the direction no.(iii) of the High Court, as quoted
herein above with regard to the noise generated by DJ and restriction on
playing music, cannot be justified in law. The Writ Petition having been
filed for a particular cause and with
a particular prayer cannot be
expanded to cover within its ambit all the issues which may be of general
or public importance without there being any pleadings or prayer with
regard to a particular issue. In our view, no such directions could have
been issued, especially in a private litigation which was not in the nature
of Public Interest Litigation. We say so, particularly, because prior to
passing any such order of public importance, the affected parties should
be impleaded, at least in a representative capacity, which is not done in
the present case. The appellants herein are the affected parties who
were neither impleaded nor given any opportunity to present their case.
As such, while quashing the direction no.(iii) in the impugned
judgment of the High Court, as quoted herein above, we make it clear
that the appellants or any other such persons may be permitted to play
the music/DJ only in accordance with law and after obtaining the requisite
license/permission from the concerned authorities. Ordered accordingly.
SACHIN KASHYAP v. SUSHIL CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands allowed to the
extent indicated above.
In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 2691 of 2021
arising out of SLP(C) No.24806/2019, the other connected appeals stand
allowed, accordingly.
Nidhi Jain
Appeals allowed.