SACHIN KASHYAP & ORS. versus SUSHIL CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 486 · Decided: 15-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VINEET SARAN, DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SACHIN KASHYAP & ORS.
v.
SUSHIL CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal  No(s). 2691 of 2021)
JULY 15, 2021
[VINEET SARAN AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Pleadings: Non-impleadment of affected parties in the writ
petition before the High Court – Issuance of direction by High Court
in writ petition, without there being any pleading or prayer with
regard to a particular issue – Effect of – On facts, writ Petition
before the High Court seeking issuance of direction to the respondent
authority to remove L.C.D. from the area – Direction by the High
Court that under the 2000 Rules, no permission for DJ to be granted
by the authority since the noise generated by DJ is unpleasant and
obnoxious level – On appeal, held: Since there were neither
pleadings nor any prayer with regard to the playing of music or DJ
in public place, the direction of the High Court, with regard to the
noise generated by DJ and restriction on playing music, not justified
– Writ Petition having been filed for a particular cause and with a
particular prayer, cannot be expanded to cover within its ambit all
the issues which may be of general or public importance without
there being any pleadings or prayer with regard to a particular
issue – No such directions could have been issued, especially in a
private litigation which was not in the nature of Public Interest
Litigation – Prior to passing any such order of public importance,
the affected parties should be impleaded, at least in a representative
capacity – Appellants are the affected parties who were neither
impleaded nor given any opportunity to present their case – Direction
by the High Court is quashed – Appellants or any other such persons
may be permitted to play the music/DJ only in accordance with law
and after obtaining the requisite license/permission from the
concerned authorities – Constitution of India – Noise Pollution
(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 486
486
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 2691
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ C. No. 1216 of 2019.
With
Civil appeal no(s). 2701, 2692, 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697, 2698,
2699, 2700, 2702, 2703, 2704, and 2705 of 2021
Ms. Garima Prasad. Sr. AAG, S. R. Singh, Arvind Varma, Sr.
Advs., Ankur Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Krishna Kumar Yadav, Pramod
Kumar, Jabar Singh, Arvind Yadav, Dr. Amardeep Gaur, M/S. V.
Maheshwari & Co., Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Ramjee Pandey, Raghvendra
Shukla, Dhananjaya Kumar Tyagi, Satbir Singh Pillania, Sandiv Kalia,
Ms. Reena Rao, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Himanshu Tyagi, Amit Wadhwa,
Shailesh Singh, Pramod Tiwari, Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Dr. Vinod Kumar
Tewari, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Vivek Sarin, Satish C. Kaushik, Aakarshan
Aditya, Dushyant Parashar, Dinesh Pandey, Manu Parashar, Amrendra
Kumar Singh, Anand Mishra, Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi, Shashibhushan
P. Adgaonkar, Pradeep Misra, Suraj Singh, Satish Pandey, Abdul Qadir,
Gulfeshan Javed, Gulshan Jahan, Ninanda Nair, Ms. Parul Shukla, Ajitesh
Soni, E. C. Agrawala, Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Advs. for the
appearing parties.
The Order of the Court was passed :
ORDER
Permission to file Special Leave Petition(s) is granted.
Delay condoned.
Intervention/impleadment applications stand allowed.
Interlocutory Application No. 167927 of 2019 for deleting the
proforma respondents No. 4 to 11 from the array of the parties stands
allowed at the risk of the appellants.
Leave granted.
For the sake of convenience, we are taking up Civil Appeal No.
2691 of 2021 arising out of SLP(C) No.24806/2019 as lead matter and
disposing of all the connected appeals by this common order.
This appeal is filed by non-parties in the Writ Petition who were,
though directly affected, neither impleaded before the High Court as
parties nor was there any prayer for issuance of such directions by
which they are aggrieved.
SACHIN KASHYAP v. SUSHIL CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
488
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
Brief facts of this case are that respondents No. 1 and 2 had filed
a Writ Petition before the High Court with the following prayers:-
“(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent authority to remove L.C.D. from
Hashimpur Chauraha, Prayagraj immediately.
(ii) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the nature
as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends
of justice under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.