NEW ROAD BROTHERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that it is a club constituted by the youths of Kochi to involve in social services for the betterment of Kochi and for the advancement of sports, arts and cultural activities. In this original petition, the petitioner prays for getting relief to people at large from public nuisance. It is stated in the original petition that extremely grave nuisance is being caused to the residents of Mohammed Abdul Raman Road and nearby areas due to the conducting of public meetings at the Mahalara Junction. It is claimed that the said Mahalara Junction is a small junction which is the converging point of 4 roads, situated at the heart of a highly populated residential area. A mosque and one school is situated very near the junction, and within a radius of 100 metres from the Junction there are more than 500 families, living in the areas namely, Bungalow Parambu, Panachikka Parambu, Kodukuthan Parambu, Valiya Parambu and Sealat lane and the said areas come within 3rd, 4th and 5th Wards of Mattancherry. The grievance of the petitioner is that it has become a routine affair for persons to conduct public meetings at the Mahalara Junction which will be more crowded in the evenings by using amplifiers and generators of very high volume and this is being done by all the political parties despite the protest of residents. It is stated further that in fact there are two other maidans, namely Karippalam Maidan which is at a distance of around 150 metres and one M.A.S.S. Ground which is situated around 50 feet away from the Mahalara Junction, which are suitable for conducting such meetings.

(2.) In Para.4 of the original petition, the petitioner has described as how exactly the nuisance is being caused to the general public. It is stated that immediately after the Namaz at the nearby mosque, speakers start functioning in the evening and meeting starts at about 8.30 pm but two hours before that film songs will be put on. Speakers are installed at a height of about two -tables length and there will be more than one connecting points. Either 4 speakers will be installed from the single post to different directions or in a linear way. Whenever VIPs take part there will be large constabulary of police and quarrels and fights among the listeners are not rare on these days which result in the police involvement. Police will also enter into the nearby houses looking for hide-outs and abuse the family members. That apart, it is stated that literally because of the horrible and unbearable sound of speech, the new born babies, studying children, aged persons and ailing citizens are put to great hardship. A particular incident is referred to in the original petition namely that in the month of December 1993, when Minister Shri. P. K. Kunhalikutty arrived at the junction for a public meeting, a quarrel occurred and people attacked each other with soda bottles, around midnight. The police entered into the nearby houses looking for the culprits. In view of "s, the residents of that area, numbering to 86, submitted a memorandum to the first respondent which is dated 9.2.1994 in this, regard. Another complaint was also filed before the second respondent. The second respondent referred the same to the Sub Inspector of Police, Mattancherry on the same day asking him to enquire into the matter and take necessary action. The remedy that is sought for is that public meetings should not be permitted to be conducted in crowded areas like Mahalara Junction as it causes problems to passers by and the nearby residents, more so when there are appropriate places available nearby, like Karippalam Maidan and M.A.S.S. Ground and that they should be asked to conduct the meetings in those grounds. In sum and substance, the grievance of the petitioner is that conducting of public meetings by various political parties and groups is causing nuisance to the public at large, namely, to the pedestrians; to the residents of that area and for the vehicular traffic apart from causing noise pollution by using amplifiers and loud-speakers.

(3.) It is stated in the original petition that on 30.3.1994 when the petitioner club learned that on the next day a public meeting was to be held, they approached the second respondent to stay the same, whereupon, he assured that he would contact the third respondent and the petitioner was asked to approach the third respondent. On 31.3.1994 the petitioner approached the third respondent and he expressed his inability to do anything in the matter due to political involvement and pressures. According to the petitioner, the third respondent in fact suggested the petitioner to approach either machineries like District Collector or the Commissioner to have the grievances redressed.