SOUND SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF KERALA v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 19(g)
Judgment
H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J. ...................................................................................W.P.(C )No. 25482 OF 2007...................................................................................Dated this the 25th September, 2007J U D G M E N TH.L. Dattu, C.J.:The first petitioner is an association. Petitioners 2 and 3 are membersof the first petitioner-association. They are before this court seeking forappropriate directions to the respondents-authorities. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioners in this Writ Petition, that therespondents are not considering their application for grant of permission touse loud speakers in public places. Therefore, they request this court to issueappropriate directions to the respondents-authorities to consider theirapplications and pass appropriate orders. 3. Two questions would arise for consideration and decision of thiscourt. First question is, whether the first petitioner-association can exposethe cause of other members, on the touch-stone of Articles 14 and 19(g) ofthe Constitution of India. It is now well settled by various decisions of theApex Court that an association does not have a fundamental right. Therefore, they cannot file a petition of this nature before this court. In thatview of the matter, in our opinion, the first petitioner-association cannotmaintain a petition of this nature before this court. 4. So far as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, their grievance is thatthough they have filed appropriate applications before the respondents-authorities for grant of permission to use loud speakers in public places, their W.P.(C )No. 25482 OF 2007 2applications have not been considered by the respondents. Exposing theinaction on the part of the respondents-authorities, petitioners 2 and 3 arebefore this court. 5. In our opinion, if for any reason, petitioners 2 and 3 are aggrievedby the inaction on the part of the respondents, they have to file appropriateapplications before appropriate forums seeking for appropriate reliefs. Thereliefs sought for in this Writ Petition cannot be granted by us. In that view ofthe matter, we do not see any good ground to entertain this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition requires to be rejected and it is rejected. 6. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners 2 and 3 to fileappropriate applications seeking for appropriate reliefs before the appropriateforums. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE.K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 19(g).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 25 Sep 2007. The bench was K T SANKARAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.