VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

Kamaraj V v. The District Collector

DISPOSED OF
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
20 January 2026
Bench
G. Jayachandran, K.K. Ramakrishnan
Case no.
WP(MD) 35224/2025

Follow Madras High CourtFollow G. JayachandranFollow K.K. Ramakrishnan

Judgment

O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.] Writ Petition is filed seeking Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 7 to take appropriate action against the 8th respondent, who is allegedly causing noise pollution by using cone type horn loudspeaker in the church premises.

2.After notice, learned Government Pleader informed the Court that enquiry was conducted and the cone type speaker used by the 8th respondent removed and they are using only box type speakers which is permissible under law.

3.However, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the noise pollution caused by the 8th respondent using the box type speaker is beyond the permissible limit and the same is used without getting any permission from the authorities.

4.Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respective parties, we dispose of this Writ Petition with the direction that the respondents 1 to 7 shall ensure that the use of speaker by the 8th respondent is only after getting due permission and within the permissible decibel limit and if there is any violation, necessary action to be taken immediately. There shall be no order as to costs.

[G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.]

20.01.2026 NCC : Index : Internet:

MR To

1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Virudhunagar.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

3.The District Pollution Control Officer, District Pollution Control Board, No.23, Master Plan Area, Sathur Road, Collectorate, Virudhunagar – 626 002.

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.

5.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

6.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchuli Sub-Division, Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District.

7.The Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District. DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,,J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,,J. MR W.P.(MD)No.35224,of,2025

20.01.2026

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.01.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN W.P.(MD)No.35224 of 2025 V.Kamaraj ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Virudhunagar. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 3.The District Pollution Control Officer, District Pollution Control Board, No.23, Master Plan Area, Sathur Road, Collectorate, Virudhunagar – 626 002. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District. 5.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 6.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchuli Sub-Division, Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District. 7.The Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District. 8.Rev.V.Ebinezar Paul Thomas, Administrator, CSI Immanuel Church, East Street, Aladipatti – 626 129. Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 7 herein to take appropriate action against the 8th respondent who is creating noise pollution by using prohibited cone type horn loudspeaker without getting any permission or licence, within the stipulated period that may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Senthilkumar For Respondents 1, 4 & 5 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, Government Pleader For Respondents 2, 6 & 7 : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran, Government Advocate [Crl. Side] For Respondent No.3 : Ms.Madhuri Donti Reddy For Respondent No.8 : Ms.Jasima Yasmin for M/s.Ajmal Associates

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.