Attau Rahman Masoodi ORDER
1. The petitioner has come up complaining that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Utraula, District Balrampur has orally directed the prohibition of the use of loudspeakers displaying audio cassettes of devotional songs in the Ram Janki Temple situate at village Garib Nagar, Utraula, District Balrampur. It is alleged in the petition that the temple is very old. A newspaper report has also been filed indicating that the Provincial Armed Constabulary has been pressed into service to stifle the use of loudspeakers during morning and evening hours when devotional songs are sung and prayers are offered by devotees with lighted lamps (Aarti).
2. According to the petitioner, this has happened on the complaint of some member of the minority Muslim community with the political pressure of a local MLA who also belongs to the same community but in spite of requests to the authorities and higher officials, nothing has been done till date. In paragraph-6 of the petition, the petitioner alleges that it is the Hindus who are in minority (approx. about 40% of the total population) in the said locality and the Muslim population is openly using loudspeakers atop mosques which has not been prohibited.
3. Sri Gupta urges that this is a clear violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and members of his community of practising their religion by the performance of ablutions and offering of prayers coupled with devotional recitals with the use of loudspeakers during morning and evening hours of "Aarti". Sri Gupta, therefore, submits that such oral orders and directions prohibiting the use of loudspeakers is clearly violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a), Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution infringing the rights of Hindu devotees of the locality. He further submits that the audio display through a loudspeaker does not offend any of the freedoms guaranteed to any other community and since no prejudice is caused, this sort of prohibitory order coupled with the use of Provincial Constabulary Police Force is constitutionally invalid. The action is also discriminatory because no such prohibition has been clamped on members of the Muslim community who continue to use loudspeakers while offering Namaaz.
4. The petition has been opposed by the learned standing counsel on behalf of the State contending that it appears from the averments made in the writ petition that some law and order situation had arisen but even otherwise, the use of loudspeakers cannot be beyond the permissible limits as per the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, which has been framed under the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Learned State counsel invited the attention of the Court to the schedule appended alongwith the said Rules, and also the procedure prescribed therein indicating restraint and restricted permissible limits of the use of loudspeakers with the permission of the authority. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he is using the loudspeakers in conformity with the 2000 Rules and as such, the relief prayed for, d........