Judgment :- The case of the petitioner is that it is a club constituted by the youths of Kochi to involve in social services for the betterment of Kochi and for the advancement of sports, arts and cultural activities. In this original petition, the petitioner prays for getting relief to people at large from public nuisance. It is stated in the original petition that extremely grave nuisance is being caused to the residents of Mohammed Abdul Rahiman Road and nearby areas due to the conducting of public meetings at the Mahalara Junction. It is claimed that the said Mahalara Junction is a small junction which is the converging point of 4 roads, situated at the heart of a highly populated residential area. A mosque and one school is situated very near the junction, and within a radius of 100 metres from the Junction there are more than 500 families, living in the areas namely Bungalow Parambu, Panachikka Parambu, Kodukuthan Parambu, Valiya Parambu and Sealat lane and the said areas come within 3rd, 4th and 5th Wards of Mattancherry. The grievance of the petitioner is that it has become a routine affair for persons to conduct public meetings at the Mahalara Junction which will be more crowded in the evenings by using amplifiers and generators of very high volume and this is being done by all the political parties despite the protest of residents. It is stated further that in fact there are two other maidans, namely, Karippalam Maidan which is at a distance of around 150 metres and one M.A. S. S. Ground which is situated around 50 feet away from the Mahalara Junction which are suitable for conducting such meetings. 2. In paragraph 4 of the original petition, the petitioner has described as how exactly the nuisance is being caused to the general public. It is stated that immediately after the Namaz at the nearby mosque, speakers start functioning in the evening and meeting starts at about 8.30 p.m. but two hours before that, film songs will be put on. Speakers are installed at a height of about 2 tables length and there will be more than one connecting point. Either 4 speakers will be installed from the single post to different directions or in a linear way. Whenever V. P. Ps. Speakers are installed at a height of about 2 tables length and there will be more than one connecting point. Either 4 speakers will be installed from the single post to different directions or in a linear way. Whenever V. P. Ps. take part there will be large constabulary of police and quarrels and fights among the listeners are not rare on these days which result in the police involvement. Police will also enter into the nearby houses looking for hide-outs and abuse the family members. That apart, it is stated that literally because of the horrible and unbearable sound of speech, the new born babies, studying children, aged persons and ailing citizens are put to great hardship. A particular incident is referred to in the original petition namely that in the month of December, 1993, when Minister Shri P. K. Kunhalikutty arrived at the junction for a public meeting, a quarrel occurred and people attacked each other with soda bottles, around midnight. The police entered into the nearby houses looking for the culprits. In view of this the residents of that area, numbering to 86, submitted a memorandum to the first respondent which is dated 9-2-1994 in this regard. Another complaint was also filed before the second respondent. The second respondent referred the same to the Sub Inspector of Police, Mattancherry on the same day asking him to enquire into the matter and take necessary action. The remedy that is sought for is that public meetings should not be permitted to be conducted in crowded areas like Mahalara Junction as it causes problems to passers by and the nearby residents, more so when there are appropriate places available nearby, like Karippalam Maidan ad M.A.S.S. Ground and that they should be asked to conduct the meetings in those grounds. In sum and substance, the grievance of the petitioner is that conducting of public meetings by various political parties and groups is causing nuisance to the public at large, namely, to the pedestrians; to the residents of that area and for the vehicular traffic apart from causing noise pollution by using amplifiers and loudspeakers. 3. In sum and substance, the grievance of the petitioner is that conducting of public meetings by various political parties and groups is causing nuisance to the public at large, namely, to the pedestrians; to the residents of that area and for the vehicular traffic apart from causing noise pollution by using amplifiers and loudspeakers. 3. It is stated in the original petition that on 30-3-1994 when the petitioner-club learned that on the next day a public meeting was to be held, they approached the second respondent to stay the same, whereupon he assured that he would contact the third respondent and the petitioner was asked to approach the third respondent. On 31-3-1994 the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent and he expressed his inability to do anything in the matter due to political involvement and pressures. According to the petitioner, the third respondent in fact suggested the petitioner to approach either machineries like District Collector or the Commissioner to have the grievances redressed. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent. At the outset, it is stated that the allegations made in the original petition are not fully correct except those are admitted in the counter affidavit. It is admitted by the third respondent that whenever a public meeting is conducted, road traffic will be obstructed due to crowd and that the Mahalara junction is a small one and there is a mosque and school near to the junction and the area is thickly populated. It is further stated that political parties and other organisations conduct meetings by using amplifiers. There are two maidens, namely Karippalam and M.A.S.S. School ground which are convenient for conducting public meetings. It is stated that meetings usually start in the evening and the amplifiers are used after getting permission from the Police. There is a categorical denial that any point of time law and order problem arose due to any quarrel between the audience as alleged in the original petition. Similarly, the allegation that the police entered into the houses in search of culprits has been categorically denied. The allegation that in the meeting held in December, 1993, when the same was attended by the Hon'ble Minister Sri Kunhalikutty, there were certain untoward incidents is also denied. Similarly, the allegation that the police entered into the houses in search of culprits has been categorically denied. The allegation that in the meeting held in December, 1993, when the same was attended by the Hon'ble Minister Sri Kunhalikutty, there were certain untoward incidents is also denied. The fact that the residents of the area submitted a memorandum to the Commissioner of Police, Kochi City on 9-2-1994 and also to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kohi has been admitted to be true. The Revenue Divisional Officer forwarded the complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Mattancherry for necessary action and the Sub Inspector made efforts to call for all concerned to find out an amicable solution. A categorical admission is made that the meetings held at the junctions are creating inconvenience to the public when there is large crowd. But however, the allegation of connivance of those who conduct meetings with the respondents has been denied. 5. In substance, it can be seen that in the counter-affidavit it is stated that the Mahalara junction is a small junction and invariably all the political parties conduct meetings by using amplifiers and loudspeakers and it causes inconvenience to the public. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 7. The place under consideration is Mahalara junction of Mohammed Abdul Rehiman Road in Mattancherry. There is no dispute that it is a small junction which is the covering point of 4 roads and situated at the heart of a highly populated residential area. Similarly, there is no dispute that there is a mosque and one school nearby the junction and within a radius of 100 metres there are more than 500 families and this area comes within the 3rd, 4th and 5th Wards of Mattancherry. It is also not disputed by the respondents that various persons and political parties used to conduct public meetings at the above said junction by using amplifiers and generators. The further admitted fact is that there are two other maidens nearby, namely Karippalam maiden and M.A.S.S. Ground. 8. Now the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that by the various persons and political parties often conduct public meetings, of course after getting the necessary permission from the concerned authorities which result in public nuisance and noise pollution and because of which the public at large are put to lot of inconvenience. 9. 8. Now the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that by the various persons and political parties often conduct public meetings, of course after getting the necessary permission from the concerned authorities which result in public nuisance and noise pollution and because of which the public at large are put to lot of inconvenience. 9. Article 19 of the Constitution enumerates the fundamental rights conferred on every citizen of India. We are concerned with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which reads: "All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression." So every citizen has got a right to express his view on any matter, subject of course to other laws that are in force. We are not concerned with the same. Now, the question is when a person, in the course of enjoying such a right, namely one conferred under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, can he interfere with the freedom of others, or in other words, can it be by interfering with the basic human rights and fundamental rights of other citizens. To put it differently can a citizens say that notwithstanding the fact that he is causing public nuisance and interfering with others rights, he would be entitled to enjoy his freedom conferred under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution in any manner he likes or absolutely without any restriction. Certainly, the answer is that a citizen cannot claim so. When meetings are held in a small junction, more particularly in the evenings, it will result in serious hardships to the public at large. It will cause inconvenience to the pedestrians and the residents of that area and cause traffic jam apart from causing noise pollution. When a person enjoys a right conferred under Article 19(1)(a) he must enjoy the same with very minimum inconvenience to the public at a large. At the risk of repetition, it may be stated that certainly conducting a meeting in a small junction, like Mahalara junction, particularly in the evening, would cause inconvenience to the public beyond a reasonable and tolerable extent and that certainly the citizens have a right to resist the same and it is the duty of the authorities to see that such meetings are not allowed to be conducted in Mahalara junction at Mattancherry, more so when very closely convenient places are available to conduct meetings. 10. 10. The honour for a speaker is when people come to listen to him. He should not go in search of a place where there is crowd to express his views. So, in the instant case, if really the speakers went to address the public, they can very well do so by conducting such meetings in Karippalam Maidan or in M.A.S.S. Ground, which are very close by to the Mahalara junction. 11. In this view of the matter, the Original Petition is allowed. The respondents are hereby directed not to grant permission to anyone to conduct public meetings at the Mahalara junction in Mattancherry. Petition allowed.