Madras High Court
Administrative and Public LawEnvironmental Law

Police rejection of event permission set aside; fresh application must be considered subject to noise-control conditions.

Karupanapandi vs State of TamilNadu Rep by th

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: October 01, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Police rejection of event permission set aside; fresh application must be considered subject to noise-control conditions.. Karupanapandi vs State of TamilNadu Rep by th. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner challenged the third respondent police officer’s order dated 24 September 2026 rejecting permission for a music competition near Alamara Pandi Temple, Usilampatti, proposed for 3 and 4 October 2026 from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Source reference: p. 1–2

He relied on an earlier case in which a rejection of permission was set aside and permission was subsequently obtained after a fresh representation.

Source reference: p. 2–3

The respondents relied on the DGP’s memorandum dated 10 August 2016 concerning loudspeaker use and permissible noise levels.

Source reference: p. 3–4
02

Issues

1. Whether the police rejection order dated 24 September 2026 should be set aside and the petitioner allowed to seek permission afresh to hold the event.

Source reference: p. 2, 5

2. Whether the event could be held subject to restrictions on loudspeaker type, noise levels, duration, and timing.

Source reference: p. 3–5
03

Law Applied

The Court considered the DGP memorandum dated 10 August 2016, issued with reference to G.O. (Ms) No. 3485, Home (Pol IV) Department, dated 29 December 1977, this Court’s judgment in W.P. No. 12165 of 1985 (Batch), and the Supreme Court’s decision in In Re: Noise Pollution Case, dated 18 July 2005.

Source reference: p. 3–4

The memorandum prohibits cone/horn-type loudspeakers and permits only box-type speakers, subject to the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000; at the boundary of the public place, noise must not exceed 10 dB(A) above the ambient noise standard or 75 dB(A), whichever is lower.

Source reference: p. 4

The Court directed that any fresh representation comply with the memorandum and applicable conditions.

Source reference: p. 5
04

Reasoning

In light of the cited memorandum and noise-control requirements, the Court did not grant unconditional permission for the proposed two-day event.

Source reference: p. 4–5

It instead set aside the rejection and allowed the petitioner to make a fresh representation on the basis that he would comply with the prescribed noise conditions; the police were to consider that representation and impose appropriate conditions.

Source reference: p. 4–5

The Court further restricted any permitted event to one day, between 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.

Source reference: p. 5
05

Holding

The petition was disposed of. The order dated 24 September 2026 was set aside, and the petitioner was permitted to submit a fresh representation in accordance with the DGP memorandum.

The police were directed to consider it and pass appropriate orders subject to conditions; any event permitted could take place for one day only, from 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Source reference: p. 5
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

KarupanapandivsState of TamilNadu Rep by th

Madras High Court · October 01, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment