ORDER 1.Heard. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for all the applicants in several applications, we are inclined to entertain a very limited grievance and that is made clear hereunder. 3. Our attention is invited to the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Noise Rules" for short) framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 3, sub-section (1) and clause (b) of sub-section (2) Section 6 and Section 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. 4. Vide S.O. 1088(E) dated 11-10-2002 sub-rule 3 was inserted by the Central Government in Rule 5 of the Noise Rules. The text of Rule 5, as amended on 11-10-2002 reads as under: "5. Restrictions on the use of loudspeakers/public address system.-(1) A loudspeaker or a public address system shall not be used except after obtaining written permission from the authority. (2) A loudspeaker or a public address system shall not be used at night (between 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m.) except in closed premises for communication within, e.g. auditoria, conference rooms, community halls and banquet halls. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), the State Government may, subject to such terms and conditions as are necessary to reduce noise pollution, permit use of loudspeakers or public address systems during night hours (between 10.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight) on or during any cultural or religious festive occasion of a limited duration not exceeding fifteen days in all during a calendar year." 5. The constitutional validity of sub-rule (3) abovesaid was put in issue by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala registered as OP No. 38066 of 2003 disposed of on 14-3-2003. The Division Bench of the High Court turned down the challenge and upheld the constitutional validity of the said sub-rule (3). 6. The writ petitioners before the Kerala High Court filed an appeal by special leave before this Court registered as CA No. 3735 of 2005 which was dealt with by this Court along with WP (C) No. 72 of 1998 and decided vide its judgment dated 18-7-2005 in Noise Pollution (V), In re1. 6. The writ petitioners before the Kerala High Court filed an appeal by special leave before this Court registered as CA No. 3735 of 2005 which was dealt with by this Court along with WP (C) No. 72 of 1998 and decided vide its judgment dated 18-7-2005 in Noise Pollution (V), In re1. It is contended that in the judgment this Court has not specifically upset the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court and has also not even otherwise expressed and recorded any specific opinion on the constitutional validity or otherwise of sub-rule (3) abovesaid. It is submitted that Rule 5, as amended, and as reproduced hereinabove continues to remain in operation but the State Governments are feeling difficulty in enforcing the Rule and also exercising the power conferred by sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Noise Rules in view of the judgment of this Court. 7. Prima facie, we find merit in the submission so made. We feel that the Court should have specifically dealt with the plea as to the validity of sub-rule (3) which was dealt with by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and expressed its opinion thereon. To this limited extent the case needs to be reopened for hearing and heard afresh. 8. Hearing in CA No. 3735 of 2005 is reopened, limited to the extent of examining the correctness or otherwise of the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court impugned therein. 9. List the matter for hearing in that regard on 24-10-2005. The Registry may inform the counsel for the appellant-writ petitioners in that appeal. 10. Until further orders Rule 5 of the Noise Rules, as reproduced hereinabove, shall continue to remain in operation. 11. So far as other applications are concerned, Mr Jitendra Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, appearing as amicus curiae in the writ petition has invited our attention to para 150 of the judgment, which is reproduced hereunder: (SCC p. 776) "150. Several interlocutory applications have been filed in this Court, wherein it was pleaded that restriction on bursting of firecrackers in the night should be removed during the Diwali festival. Similar relaxation was demanded for other festivals. These applications highlighted practices prevalent in some of the western countries wherein such relaxation is allowed. We do not think that we will be justified in granting any such relaxation. Indian society is pluralistic. Similar relaxation was demanded for other festivals. These applications highlighted practices prevalent in some of the western countries wherein such relaxation is allowed. We do not think that we will be justified in granting any such relaxation. Indian society is pluralistic. People of this great country belong to different castes and communities, have belief in different religions and customs and celebrate different festivals. We are tolerant of each other. There is unity in diversity. If relaxation is allowed to one there will be no justification for not permitting relaxation to others and if we do so the relaxation will become the rule. It will be difficult to enforce the restriction." We are not inclined to reopen the hearing insofar as the above aspect of the case is concerned. All the issues covered by the judgment dated 18-7-20051 excepting the one relating to CA No. 3735 of 2005 stand concluded. 12. All the IAs be treated as disposed of.