Summary:
The court noted that more than a year afterwards, the parties had not filed their affidavit. The word ‘DJ’ is used for music systems that are played during public functions – it stands for disc jockey, someone who plays recorded music to entertain an audience. Following certain interim orders, the HC passed certain restrictions on playing/using DJ (sound) system.Police authorities, the lawyer said, misconstrued these orders of the HC and started a publicity campaign using boards and notices showing that the HC had banned DJ sound systems.After several representations made by DJ operators fell on deaf ears, they filed the writ petition in the HC last year, the lawyer said. Aurangabad: More than a year ago, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court issued notices to the Central Pollution Control Board and the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board seeking a response after a registered DJ sound system organisation filed a writ petition seeking that a declaration be made that there is no ban on DJ sound systems. The division bench of the HC came down heavily on the Centre and state for failing to file a response over a year after the notice was served.Issuing an ultimatum, the HC asked respondents to either file their reply by the next date of hearing or be ready to appear in person before the HC.The division bench of the HC comprising Justice SV Gangapurvala and Justice SK Kotwal said that on March 9, 2017, the court had directed respondents to file an affidavit..