Shri A K Premnath v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

2 Shri Srikanta Datta Narasimharaaja Wadiyar s/o late Shri Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar, aged 59 years The Bangalore Palace P.B.No.193, Vasantanagar, Bangalore-52. Respondents ( By Sri K M Nataraj, Addl.Advocate General alongwith Sri Keshava Reddy, AGA) 2 This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the proceedings of the Single Window Agency constituted by the 1st respondent held on 01.06.2012 insofar as item No.4 vide Annexure-A, the communication dated 21.6.2012 in No.DPAR.77.PSR/2012 issued by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-A1 thereby rejecting the request of the petitioner for conducting circus activities in a portion of the Palace Grounds at Bangalore belonging to the 2nd respondent and direct the 1 st respondent and its Departments and Agencies to consider the application of the 2nd respondent dated 20.04.2012 vide Annexure-G on behalf of the petitioner and grant permission, licenses etc. to conduct circus in a portion of the land in Bangalore Palace. This W.P. coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court passed the following:- PC: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner in the present writ petition seeks the following relief: a)Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper and set aside the proceedings of the Single i) constituted by the 1st Window respondent held on 01.06.2012 insofar as item No.4 vide Annexure-A, and Agency ii) the communication dated 21.6.2012 in No.DPAR.77.PSR/2012 issued by the 1st respondent thereby rejecting the request of the petitioner for conducting circus activities in a portion of Annexure-A1 3 the Palace Grounds at Bangalore belonging to the 2nd respondent b)Issue a writ of mandamus and direct the 1st respondent and its Departments and Agencies to consider the application of the 2nd respondent dated 20.04.2012 vide Annexure- G on behalf of the petitioner and grant permission, licenses etc. to conduct circus in a portion of the land in Bangalore Palace.

3. The learned counsel for the parties have agreed for the order that I propose to pass for disposing of the writ petition. However, before doing so, I would like to make a brief reference to the background against which the petitioner has approached this Court for seeking the aforementioned reliefs.

4. The 2nd respondent had made an application to the Government dated 20.4.2012 for the benefit of the petitioner allowing him to conduct circus in a portion of the Palace Ground. Their application was rejected by the President, Single Window Committee and Principal Secretary to Government, DPAR in the meeting held on

1.6.2012. The decision of the Single Window Committee was communicated to respondent No.2, the owner of the palace ground, vide order dated 21.6.2012 with a copy to 4 the petitioner. From perusal of the order/letter dated

21.6.2012 (Annexure-A1), it appears that permission was rejected mainly on the basis of legal opinion of the Law Department, Government of Karnataka. They have also reproduced the legal opinion given by the Law Department in the letter dated 21.6.2012, which reads thus: “HSCI has made an interim arrangement on 14.9.1998, in CA 3303/97 One of the directions issued by the HSCI is that the State Government shall not refuse permission to let out the premises, so long as the purpose for letting out is not inconsistent with the object of the Act. Holding commercial music concerts/shows, particularly during nigh time, causing traffic problems, ecological problems, sound pollution may not be in consonance with the object of the Act. Such shows may even gives scope for criminal activities etc. Therefore, legally it may not be proper to grant permission. Permission sought had already been rejected and the There could be no remedy was elsewhere. question of reconsideration of the view already taken.”

5. I have perused the original file produced for my consideration consisting of the letter whereby a legal opinion was sought. From the legal opinion, it appears that a party had approached the Government for seeking 5 permission to hold commercial music concerts/shows, during night time. Having considered that and considering traffic problems, ecological problems, sound pollution, which, Government did not find it in consonance with the object of the Act had refused the permission. The same opinion, it seems, the Government used for refusing permission to conduct circus at the Palace Ground.

6. The learned Additional Advocate General in all fairness submitted that the respondents are prepared to consider the application of the petitioner/respondent No.2 afresh in the light of the order passed by the Supreme Court and also new guidelines, which they propose to frame. He submits that they shall complete the exercise within ten days from today. It is open to the Government to frame guidelines, if they so desire and advised. I would not like to make any comment as to whether the Government can frame such guidelines. I am making such observation in view of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Government in 6 the light of the order passed by the Supreme Court has no power to frame guidelines and permission should be granted or rejected solely on the basis of the orders passed by the Supreme Court. In support of this contention, my attention was invited to the order dated

14.9.1998 passed by the Supreme Court, in particular paragraphs 1(i) to (viii). I have perused the order of the Supreme Court and the paragraphs to which my attention was invited. My attention was also drawn to the order dated 3rd January, 2011 passed in WP No.6068/2009. In that writ petition, the directions were sought to the respondents immediate action organising/holding/facilitating/ granting permission for public rallies, music shows, consumer fair and other functions, which is associated with loud music and sound in Palace grounds except in according with the guidelines prescribed under Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rule, 2000. I have perused the order. I deem it appropriate to issue directions to the Government that while considering the application made by respondent No.2 for the benefit of the petitioner 7 afresh the concerned authority may bear in mind the order dated 14.9.1998 passed by the Supreme Court and also the order dated 3rd January, 2011 passed by this Court. It would not be out of place to make a reference to the representation dated 18.7.2012 made by the petitioner requesting the Government to review their decision, impugned in the present writ petition. This Court was informed that the representation is still pending. It is in this background, I pass the following: i) The decision of Single Window Committee taken in its meeting held on 1.6.2012 and the communication dated 21.6.2012 are set aside. The application made by respondent No.2 dated 20.4.2012 is restored to file. ii) The Government shall consider the application dated 20.4.2012 afresh within ten days from today in the light of the order of the Supreme Court and of this Court dated 3.1.2011. It is open to the petitioner to file compilation of additional documents, if they so desire, in support of their application dated 20.4.2012 on or before

13.12.2012. I hope and trust that the Government shall 8 pass a speaking order on the application dated 20.4.2012 within the stipulated time and shall communicate the same to the petitioner immediately thereafter. The observations made in the order shall not preclude the Government from framing guidelines, if they so desire and advised. All contentions in respect thereof are kept open. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. Bkm. Sd/- JUDGE