IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY. Decided On: Appellants: Yashwant Trimbak Oke and Ors. Vs. Respondent: State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Similar documents
W.P.No.32054/2014 (GM-RES) ORDER. In Prakash Singh Vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1, Apex Court issued several directions in the matter of police

Equivalent Citation: 2009(1)AWC856(SC), 2009(4)BomCR448, [2009(1)JCR193(SC)], 2009(1)SCALE293, (2009)2SCC442 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, with Amendments, including the Amendment made on 11 January 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. Crl.A. No. 732 of 2000 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No of 1999) Decided On:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on:

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5

[Abstract prepared by the PCT Legal Division (PCT )] Case Name: TRYTON MEDICAL INC. V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Delhi Land Revenue Act, Reserved on: January 27, Pronounced on: February 22, 2012

State Of A.P vs V. Sarma Rao & Ors. Etc. Etc on 10 November, 2006

2. Heard Sri Bhola Singh Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishad Murtza, learned Government Advocate.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO OF Society Ltd (IPRS)..Petitioner Vs.

Draft of Public Interest Writ Petition Against Restrictions on Withdrawals from Bank Accounts

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2015 % Judgment Delivered on: December 01, CM(M) 1155/2015.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PIL WRIT PETITION NO.70 OF 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD Special Civil Application No of 2015 AUTOMARK INDUSTRIES (I) LTD Vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND 3 Harsha Deva

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos of 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.85 OF 2007

CDJ 2010 SC 546 JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH

Bar & Bench (

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.5 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS. Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1519/2003. versus. % Date of Decision: 14 th March, 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.

Ch. 17 SPECIAL RULES OF PRACTICE CHAPTER 17. SPECIAL RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR MATTERS BEFORE THE BOARD

Case No.3 of Shri P.Subrahmanyam, Chairman Shri Venkat Chary, Member, Shri Jayant Deo, Member.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 15 th January, W.P.(C) No.3687/1995

RESPONDENT: D.S. Mathur, Secretary,Department of Telecommunications

Manoj Shirsat, petitioner in person (in PILL 37/2017) Tanveer Nizam for the petitioners (in PILL 38/2017) Amit Sale for the Bar Council of India.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L. P. A. No. 511 of 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. 1. Writ Petition (Civil) No of Judgment reserved on: August 30, 2007

Bombay High Court Bombay High Court The President/Secretary vs Shri Pradipkumar S/O... on 21 February, 2012 Bench: Ravi K.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Protection of Environment Act 2053 B.S. (1997)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1374 OF 2008

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 567 of 2017 JANHIT MANCH & ANR...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS WITH

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

Case No. 295 of Coram. Anand B. Kulkarni, Chairperson Mukesh Khullar, Member. Adani Power Maharashtra Limited (APML)

912-WP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3989 OF 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO OF 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) No.9681/2009 Judgment decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR. W.P. No & W.P.Nos /2012(T-RES)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD. Cri. Misc. Writ Petition No of Decided On: Appellants: Dr. Mehboob Alam Vs.

Date : 25/07/2016 CAV ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Through: Mr. Arjun Mitra, Advocate

THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT AND VALIDATION) BILL, 2009

Need for clarity as to what constitutes pre-packaged commodity

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. Review Petition (C) No of 1997 in Writ Petition (C) 824 of Decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BORDER SECURITY FORCE ACT, 1968 Date of Decision: W.P.(C) No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) NO.591 OF 2014 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.VI,... Respondents. Delhi and Anr. Through Ms.Amita Gupta, Advocate

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 5568/2017 & CM No /2017

Through Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Advocate with petitioner in person. VERSUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : IMC ACT, 1956 Date of Decision: W.P.(C) 4223/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER DECIDED ON: W.P.(C) 840/2003. versus. versus

Act, with the objective to serve as a post-graduate school for advanced. teaching and research in Economics and allied subjects and to admit students

3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer South Western Railway Hubli Division, Hubli PETITIONERS

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI. Original Application No. 42/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO OF 2015

: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA. CP.KLRA No.3/2006

Case No. 02 of Shri V. P. Raja, Chairman Shri S. B. Kulkarni, Member Shri V. L. Sonavane, Member

Appropriate Authorities (AA) under PCPNDT Act. Their roles, duties and functions Anuja Gulati

Through : Mr. A.K.Singla, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Pankaj Gupta and Ms.Promila K.Dhar Advocates. Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No of Decided On:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 171 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI CONTROL OF VEHICULAR AND OTHER TRAFFIC ON ROAD & STREET REGULATION, 1980 W.P.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.2631 OF State of Bihar & Ors.

Salem Advocate Bar Association,... vs Union Of India on 25 October, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 20 OF Vs. DEVAS MULTIMEDIA P. LTD...

CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY. 1. Short title, extent, commencement and application. 2. Definitions. CHAPTER II THE ADVISORY BOARDS

$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgment delivered on:10 th September, 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Delhi Sales Tax Act, Judgment reserved on : Judgment delivered on :

Through :Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Abhiruchi Arora, Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. Jaishree Shukla, Advs.

J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5124/06) A.K. MATHUR, J.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI VERSUS

Search in selected Domain Search in selected Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 181 of 2017

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3650 OF 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO OF

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 233O OF 2006

% W.P.(C) No. 5513/2004

II (2013) CPJ 10A (NC) (CN) NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI Hon ble Mr. Justice V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member PARMOD KUMAR

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgment delivered on: December 11, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO OF 1992

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. C.R.P. (NPD) No. 574 of Decided On:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2020 OF 2013 LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987

Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate. versus ABUL KALAM AZAD ISLAMIC AWAKENING CENTRE THROUGH. Through: Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5953 OF 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.23 OF 2016 VERSUS J U D G M E N T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 267 of The State of Jharkhand and another Vrs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CONDONATION OF DELAY. W.P (C ) No /2006. Judgment reserved on: October 19, 2006

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6920/2015 & C.Ms. No.18134, 25570, 26645, of 2015 Pronounced on: 29 th January, 2016.

Transcription:

Subject: Environment Catch Words IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Decided On: 00.00.1995 Appellants: Yashwant Trimbak Oke and Ors. Vs. Respondent: State of Maharashtra and Ors. Hon'ble Judges: M.B. Shah, C.J. and J.N. Patel, J. Future Generation, Noise Pollution, Public Interest, Public Nuisance Acts/Rules/Orders: Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Sections 15 and 17; Constitution of India - Article 19; Anti-Pollution Laws; Water Act; Air Act Cases Referred: The State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali, Air 1952 Bombay 84; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal v. Union of India and Ors., JT 1996(4) 263 Case Note: Environment noise pollution Article 19 of Constitution of India and Sections 15 and 17 of Environment (Protection) Act,1986 State Government took out notice of motion to grant permission to various applicants for holding Navratri festival with use of loudspeakers petitioner questions justification of application Environmental Laws have been enacted to be enforced and not violated effective control of noise is for well being of society grant of permission would lead to infringement of law - notice of motion dismissed with direction given to State Government to control noise pollution and protecting Environment Act and Rules. JUDGMENT 1. In this Public Interest Litigation the State Government has taken out this Notice of Motion for permitting it to grant permission to various applicants for holding Navratri

festival with the use of loudspeakers in Greater Mumbai from 13th to 21st October 1996 upto 1.00 a.m. It is pointed out that the authorities of State Government under the Rules called "the Rules for Licensing, Controlling and Prohibiting the use of Loudspeaker in or near all public entertainment place in Greater Bombay Rule, 1994" empowers them to grant exemption in certain cases. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the Government that Navratri festival is a special occasion for which exemption is required to be granted with certain limitations. The learned Advocate-General submitted that the licensing authority would strictly keep control over the use of loudspeaker and would permit use of box type loudspeaker only which would have no adverse effect on noise pollution. He submitted that considering the festival of Navratri, Court may permit grant of such permission to use loudspeaker upto 1.00 a.m. 3. This application is vehemently opposed on behalf of the Petitioner by learned Counsel Mr. S.A. Diwan and learned counsel Mr. C.U. Singh. They submitted that this application is filed so as to have an imprimatur of the Court for the State Government to infringe the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and for protecting themselves from the rigours of Section 15 read with Section 17 of the said Act. It is pointed out that religion nowhere requires that festivals should be celebrated by disturbing the peace of others or by creating noise or by use of loudspeaker or 'that loudspeaker is a must for observing religious festival. It is submitted that during Navratri festival, Garbas are played by the mass but that would not require any loudspeaker. In support of his submission, Mr. Singh pressed into service the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in The State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali, MANU/MH/0040/1952 : AIR1952Bom84, wherein the Court has observed as follows :- "A sharp distinction must be drawn between religious faith and belief and religious practices. What the State protects is religious faith and belief. If religious practices run counter to public order, morality or health or a policy of social welfare upon which the State has embarked, then the religious practices must give way before the good of the people of the State as a whole." 4. Learned Counsel Shri Diwan relied upon the findings given in paragraph 14.4.3 of the Report of The National Commission on Urbanisation, Volume II, regarding noise pollution in cities. It reads as under :- "There is a great deal of noise pollution in India Cities on account of inadequately silenced vehicle engines and amplified audio-transmissions from restaurants, shops, households, etc., and also the use of amplifiers and loudspeakers for religious functions, social gatherings and other forms of public assembly. Social intercourse and religious discourses are personal matters and should remain so. There should be stringent laws prohibiting and punishing sound amplification which creates a public nuisance, with a total ban on the use of loudspeakers. This, naturally, would not apply to public assembly in exercise of the rights under Article 19 of the Constitution, but this would be subject to regulation so that no public nuisance is created. The harmful effect of noise pollution,

especially on the human mind, is no less serious than pollution of the air that we breathe or the water that we drink." He further submitted that in the previous affidavit filed before this Court on behalf of the State, the same deponent has stated that the Government is considering ban for use of loudspeaker in the city of Mumbai. Now the same deponent has filed this application for an order permitting the use of loudspeaker. 5. As against this, learned Counsel for some Intervenors, who are supporting the stand taken by the State Government, submitted that during Navratri festival, Garbas are played and for that purpose in the city number of persons take it as a cultural and religious activity and for that purpose use of loudspeaker is absolutely necessary. They submitted that permission may be granted by imposing certain stringent conditions so that religious sentiments of the public at large are not hurt. It is also submitted that the normal time limit imposed by the State Government upto 11.30 p.m. is insufficient and hardly any function is possible within this time-limit in a city like Mumbai where people return home after 9.00 p.m. from their work place and thereafter the celebrations start only after 11.00 p.m. Therefore, it is submitted that at least two hours' extension of time may be permitted. 6. In our view, this application to permit use of loudspeaker after 11.30 p.m., if allowed, would only add to the existing noise pollution in the city of Mumbai. Noise pollution in the city even without loudspeakers was measured by the Committee formed by this Court in the year 1986. It was found that time noise pollution was much more and the Committee has suggested various measures for reducing the same. In the present Petition also, with regard to noise pollution, joint measurements were taken at different parts of the city pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 13th March 1996 and noise pollution was found to be more than the permissible decibels. In that view of the matter, as stated above, the Government has filed affidavit stating that proper measures for banning use of loudspeakers would be taken. From time to time, we have passed orders for this purpose. Instead of complying with those orders, the present Notice of Motion is taken out. 7. It should not be forgotten that Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 enacted by Parliament and the Rules framed thereunder are meant for enforcement and are not for their violation. It is the duty of the State Government to enforce it rigorously and not to find out excuses for not implementing it. Effective control of noise disturbance is for the well being of the society. The adverse effect of noise pollution is now scientifically examined and is well known as it adversely affects the health of the citizens. We do not want to discuss this aspect any further. However, it would be worthwhile to quote the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal v. Union of India and Ors. JT 1996(4) 263, that enactment of a law, relating to protection of environment, usually provides for what activity can or cannot be done by people. If the people were to voluntarily respect such a law, and abide by it, then it would result in law being able to achieve the object for which it was enacted. Where, however, there is a conflict between the provision of law and personal interest, then it often happens that

self-discipline and respect for law disappear. The Court thereafter pertinently observed as under :- "Enactment of a law, but tolerating its infringement is worse than not enacting law at all. The continued infringement of law, over a period of time, is made possible by adoption of such means which are best known to the violators of law. Continued tolerance of such violations of law not only renders legal provisions nugatory but such tolerance by the Enforcement Authorities encourages lawlessness and adoption of means which cannot, or ought not to be tolerated in any civilized society. Law should not only be meant for law abiding but is meant to be obeyed by all for whom it has been enacted. A law is usually enacted because the legislature feels that it is necessary. It is with a view to protect and preserve the environment and save it for the future generations and to ensure good quality of life that the Parliament enacted the Anti-Pollution Laws, namely, the Water Act, Air Act and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986...These Acts and Rules framed and Notifications issued thereunder contain provisions which prohibit and/or regulate certain activities with a view to protect and preserve the environment. When a law is enacted containing some provisions which prohibits certain types of activities then it is of utmost importance that such legal provisions are effectively enforced. Otherwise, infringement of law, which is actively or passively condoned for personal gain, will be encouraged which will in turn lead to a lawless society. Violation of anti-pollution laws not only adversely affects the existing quality of life but the non-enforcement of the legal provisions often results in ecological imbalance and degradation of environment, the adverse effect of which will have to be borne by the future generations." 8. While dealing with a similar application during the Ganesh festival, we have rejected it by our order dated 10th September 1996 by observing that religious ceremony nowhere provides that on religious festival days loudspeaker is a must without which festivals cannot be observed. For us, it would be difficult to distinguish Ganesh festival from Navratri festival. We note that during Ganesh festival the Respondents had taken proper steps for controlling the noise pollution. Therefore, we do not find any justifiable reason to grant permission to use loudspeakers as prayed for during Navratri festival which would only result in increase in noise pollution. In any case, there is no question or granting any permission by us or putting an imprint or seal to do something which is in violation of the Environment Act and the Rules. It is for the State Government to implement the said Act and the Rules and prohibit certain activities which adversely affect the lives of persons who cannot oppose the noise pollution for various restraints. It is the duty of the State Government not to encourage the activities which will lead to violation of law. Nobody can object to Navratri festival or any festival for that matter. These festivals can be enjoyed even without loudspeaker. Garba or Dandiya during the Navratri festival without noise pollution by the loudspeaker were played in the recent past and can be played without use of loudspeaker. Hence we reiterate the direction given in paragraph 8, 9 and 10 of the order dated 10th September 1996, which arc as under :- "8. In view of this, we do not think any further order is necessary except to observe that the Respondents should take appropriate action to prevent additional noise pollution which adversely affects the member of the society at large. The State Government cannot

wash off their hands by stating that it may lead to law and order situation. Hence the Respondents would sec that during this extra noise created by loudspeakers, beating of bands, drums and bursting of fire crackers is minimized. 9. The State Government is directed to issue necessary advertisement so as to educate the public at large with regard to noise pollution in the city particularly its adverse effect on health of the citizens at large. 10. The Police Commissioner is directed to issue necessary instructions to the concerned Police Stations that on receipt of the complaint with regard to noise pollution, appropriate action be taken as early as possible. Further, while permitting the use of loudspeakers, appropriate undertaking be also taken from the concerned organizers that loudspeakers will be modulated only within the permissible limits and timing and used during permitted timing." 9. Hence, the State Government would take appropriate steps to control noise pollution created by loudspeakers during these festivals and protect the silent sufferers, may be students, old, infirm or others not interested. It is for the State to implement the law as it is. 10. With the above observations and directions, this Notice of Motion is dismissed.