Case at a Glance
An event firm organising a live singing concert in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, got police permission under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 — but subject to Condition No. 18, which barred serving alcohol or intoxicants at the event. The Lucknow Bench held that the Noise Rules regulate sound levels and zones and contain no power to permit or deny the serving of liquor, so the condition was illegal, arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction, and also discriminatory since similar events had no such condition. It quashed the permission letter, directed a fresh permission without Condition 18, and asked the District Excise Officer to decide the firm’s FL-11 (Event Bar) licence application in accordance with law the next day.
Atlani Brothers Live, a proprietorship firm, planned a live singing event on 10 October 2026, from 5:00 PM to 9:45 PM, at Dayal Gateway in Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. It applied for permission under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 on 27 August 2026. On 30 September 2026 the Additional Police Commissioner (Law and Order) granted permission subject to 18 conditions, with a maximum sound level below 75 dB(A). Condition No. 18 barred serving or use of alcohol or intoxicating substances during the concert. The same day, the firm deposited Rs 42,730 for police deployment.
The firm said the event was sponsored by a liquor company and that the condition stopped it from applying for an FL-11 (Event Bar) licence under the U.P. Excise (Grant of Bar License) Rules, 2020. It argued that the condition was outside the Noise Rules, that any restriction on intoxicants was for the Excise Department, and that a comparable concert permitted on 11 July 2026 carried no such restriction, which violated Article 14. The State said permissions are ordinarily granted subject to conditions, but its counsel could not dispute that Condition No. 18 is not prescribed under the 2000 Rules; an application to the Excise Department, it said, would be considered expeditiously.
The Key Question Before the Court
While granting permission for a concert under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, can the police impose a condition banning the serving of alcohol at the event?
Why Condition 18 could not survive
The Court framed the only issue as the validity of Condition No. 18. Examining the 2000 Rules, it noted that they require the State to maintain ambient noise standards and to classify areas as industrial, commercial, residential or silence zones, with Schedule I setting the noise limits for each. They say nothing about intoxicants: “there is no provision in the Rules of 2000 with regard to the power and/or scope of permitting or denying” the serving of liquor. A police authority acting under those Rules therefore had no power to impose such a term.
The Court held that “Condition No.18 imposed by the Additional Police Commissioner (Law and Order) is illegal, arbitrary” and beyond jurisdiction. It also accepted the plea of discrimination, finding that “the petitioners have been adversely discriminated while issuing the impugned permission,” since no such condition had been imposed for similar events. At the same time, the Court did not itself grant any liquor permission: the FL-11 licence remained a matter for the Excise Department, which was directed to consider the firm’s application in accordance with law, and the firm was required to deposit all fees and comply with all legal conditions.
What the Court Actually Held
- The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 deal with ambient noise standards and zoning and confer no power on the police to permit or prohibit the serving of alcohol at an event.
- Condition No. 18 of the permission dated 30 September 2026 was illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, and discriminatory as similar events carried no such condition.
- The permission letter was quashed and the Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Lucknow, directed to issue a fresh order by 11:30 AM on 9 October 2026 without Condition No. 18.
- The District Excise Officer, Lucknow, to decide the FL-11 (Event Bar) licence application in accordance with law by 5:00 PM on 9 October 2026; the firm to pay all fees and meet all legal conditions; writ petition allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It draws a clear line between noise-permission powers and excise powers — each authority must act within its own statute.
- Event organisers, venues and sponsors across Uttar Pradesh can challenge permission conditions that have no basis in the Rules under which permission is granted.
- The Court acted within hours of the event date, showing writ courts will give urgent relief where a deadline would otherwise make the remedy useless.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Event Organisers
- Check whether each condition in a noise permission actually flows from the Noise Rules; unrelated conditions can be challenged.
- A licence to serve liquor still has to be obtained separately from the Excise Department, with fees and conditions.
For Counsel
- Plead lack of statutory source for the condition and show comparable permissions without it to build an Article 14 case.
- Seek time-bound directions to both the police and the excise authority where the event date is near.
Key Takeaways
- Noise Rules permission cannot carry a liquor ban.
- Condition 18 quashed as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.
- Fresh permission ordered without the condition.
- Bar licence left to the Excise Department to decide by law.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can police ban alcohol at an event while granting noise permission?
Not under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, the Lucknow Bench held. Those Rules deal with noise standards and zones, not with intoxicants.
Does this mean the event automatically got a liquor licence?
No. The Court directed the District Excise Officer to consider the FL-11 (Event Bar) licence application in accordance with law, and the organiser had to pay the fees and comply with all conditions.
Why did the Court find discrimination?
Because similar events had been permitted without any such condition, so imposing it on this organiser alone was held to be adverse discrimination.
Conclusion
The ruling is narrow but useful: the authority that regulates loudspeakers cannot use that permission to regulate liquor. Each regulator must stay within the statute that gives it power.
Practical takeaway: When a permission carries a condition unrelated to the statute it is granted under, challenge the condition — and apply separately to the authority that actually has the power.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com