JUDGMENT 1. THIS is a writ petition by thirty three Writ petitioners challenging an order passed under section 30 (3)of the Police Act, 1861 imposing a condition upon immersion procession. The allegation of the petitioners is that the petitioners are entitled to take the deity Shree Monosha Malta in procession in accompaniment of musical instruments along the village pathways of Sompara, Mahammadpur and Palitapara. It has been alleged that this right is being exercised for a long time and the image is ultimately immersed in a tank at Sompara. The police authorities imposed two conditions. The first was that the procession must pass out of the mosque area at Mohammadpur within 10. 00 hours, and 17. 00 hours on 18. 9. 85. The second condition was that no music shall be played or any other noise made within one hundred yards of any mosque, temple or place of worship. The order has been given by the police authority on the basis of an agreement reached between the Hindu and the Muslim communities on 25. 5. 82 at 10. 00 hours at the office of Sompara-I Gram Panchayat on the issue of a tension due to Harinam Sangkirtan near the mohammedan Mosque on 11. 5. 82. 2. THE petitioners claims that this is an interference with the religious right. Immersion is a custom among the Hindus and these processions are usually accompanied by bands and drums etc. This cannot be stopped under any circumstances. On principle I am unable to accept this contention. There is no absolute right to play music or beat drums under any circumstances. The right is always a qualified right. To give an example, if there is a hospital and the procession is to pass by that hospital the police authority may reasonably impose a condition that no noise will be permitted near the hospital. The State can always impose reasonable restriction upon the exercise any fundamental right. The question is whether the restriction is reasonable or not. This must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot be any absolute yardstick of reasonableness. The facts of this case indicate that there was communal tension. An agreement was entered between the two communities to maintain peace and the agreement was also not to beat drums or play music in front of any temple, mosque or any other place of religious worship. 3. There cannot be any absolute yardstick of reasonableness. The facts of this case indicate that there was communal tension. An agreement was entered between the two communities to maintain peace and the agreement was also not to beat drums or play music in front of any temple, mosque or any other place of religious worship. 3. THIS agreement was taken note of in an order this court passed on 17. 9. 85 in the matter in Re : Kader Sk and Ors. a xerox copy of which has been filed in Court and kept with the record. It appears that there was an earlier proceeding in this court about these very villages. A criminal revision application ultimately came up to this court, where it was directed by this Court after referring to the agreement between the two factions that the Officer- in- Charge, Beldanga police Station will ensure that no people of any community was permitted to beat drums or play musical instrument within one hundred yards of any mosque, temple or any other place of worship. 4. A point was made that this order was passed in a proceeding under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and cannot be deemed to be in force for all time to come. In my opinion, this point is of substance. This order cannot be considered -to be an order in perpetuity. Therefore, I am unable to uphold the contention that this order passed by this court on 17. 9. 85 will be finding on the police authorities for all time to come. In my opinion, this order must be confined to the case before the Court. 5. IT is, however, to be noted that the impugned order of the police authority cannot be said to be unreasonable in the facts of the case. The police authority will be entirely free to pass a fresh order in accordance with law in the next year. But it cannot be said that the order that has been passed is unreasonable and interferes with the fundamental right of the petitioners. In this connection it should be noted that the order restrains the persons taking part in the procession from beating drums only within one hundred yards of the mosques. The procession will cover a long distance. The people of the procession have been restrained from playing band or drums only for a brief while. 6. In this connection it should be noted that the order restrains the persons taking part in the procession from beating drums only within one hundred yards of the mosques. The procession will cover a long distance. The people of the procession have been restrained from playing band or drums only for a brief while. 6. IN my opinion it cannot be said that the discretion was not properly used in this case. My attention was drawn to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in MR 1981 SC 2198 (Gulam Abbas and Ors. v- State of U. P. and Ors.. Where it was held that as far as possible attempt should be made to regulate the customary rights of a religious community and not prohibit them altogether. Here the right was not prohibited. The police authority allowed the procession to be taken out, but the right was regulated. Restriction was imposed on playing of bands or drums in a small area while the procession went on. Strong reliance was placed on a judgment passed by B. P. Banerjee, j. in the case of Prabhas Kumar Roy v. Officer-in-Charge, raninagar P. S. and Ors., reported in 89 CWN 529, where it was held that the Magistrate had no right and/or jurisdiction under section 144 to interfere with the rights guaranteed under article 25 of the constitution and pass a prohibitory order about the playing of musical instrument in front of mosques in the village Bamnabad. But this is not a case of an order passed by the Magistrate. The order has been passed by the Police authorities who have been entrusted with the duty to enforce law and order. Therefore, that case is entirely distinguishable on facts. Moreover, it has to be borne in mind that under section 30 of the Police Act, the police has been authorised to define the conditions on which alone an assembly or procession is to be permitted. In this case the police authorities in its wisdom has decided' to impose certain conditions. Whether those conditions are valid or not, has to be judged having regard to the facts of each case. In the facts of this case it cannot be said that the imposition or the condition by the police was arbitrary. There cannot be any dispute that the hindus have a right to observe their religious function. Whether those conditions are valid or not, has to be judged having regard to the facts of each case. In the facts of this case it cannot be said that the imposition or the condition by the police was arbitrary. There cannot be any dispute that the hindus have a right to observe their religious function. They have a right to take out precessions for immersion of images which were worshipped from time to time. For taking out of such procession, musical instruments may be played. These rights cannot be denied to the Hindus. Similarly, the Christians have right to take out procession, hold meetings, play music. The Muslims have a right to take out processions and hold religious festivals etc. These things cannot be stopped by the police generally. But in a given case, having regard to the facts and circumstances, some restriction can be imposed on the exercise of these rights by the, police. 7. I am unable to hold that the order that has been passed was unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case at that point of time. Therefore, this writ petition must fail. 8. I, however, make it clear that there cannot be any general order for all time to come a separate order has to be passed each year having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case by proper exercise of mind. It will be open to the petitioners to apply to the police authorities in the subsequent years to be allowed to take out procession and play musical instruments in the way they like and the police will be at liberty to consider the application in accordance with law and on the facts and circumstances, prevailing at that point of time. This writ petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order, as to costs. Kuchun.