Case: SACHIN KASHYAP &amp; ORS Vs. SUSHIL CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA &amp; ORS

8. 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 Honble 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.9. While considering the said prayers, the High Court issued 9 directions in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment dated 20.08.2019.10. 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.

Court's reasoning:
15. 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.