Dismissed

M/S Sanjay Light House and 14 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2019WRIC/29939/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenged a notice issued under the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000. The court held that the notice was issued in compliance with a concurrent bench judgment and dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to seek remedies at the Supreme Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Notice issued under the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000 not interfered with. Liberty to approach Supreme Court if advised.

M/S Sanjay Light House and 14 Others Vs State of… — Environment and Pollution | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29939 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Sanjay Light House And 14 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pratik Srivastava,Sri Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pratik Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents and perused the record.

¶7

The petitioners are aggrieved against the notice issued under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 to the petitioners filed collectively as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition.

¶8

The contents of the notice since in respect of all the petitioners is same, therefore, the notice as issued to the petitioner no.1 in Annexure No.3 is reproduced hereunder:-

¶9

uksfVl

¶10

vUrxZr /ofu iznw"k.k ¼fofu;e ,oa fu;a=.k fu;e 200½

¶11

Mhts lapkyd Jh xtjk Mhts lqthr dqekj iq= ljs'k dqekj

¶12

Lfkku 830@666 ds&1 dhMxat iz;kxjkt

¶13

Fkkuk dhMxat

¶14

tuin iz;kxjktA

¶15

,rn~}kjk vki dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ,oa mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn }kjk /ofu iznw"k.k fofu;e ,oa fu;a=.k] :Yl 2000 ds mYya?ku esa Mhts dk lapkyu dj /ofu iznw"]k.k djus okyksa ds fo:) dBksj ,oa Rofjr fof/kd dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus ds funsZ'k fuxZr gSA ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn }kjk fjV la[;k&1216@2019 lq'khy pUnz JhokLro ,oa vU; cuke m0iz0 jkT; o vU; esa ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; ds fofHkUu fofu'p;ksa dks m)`r djrs gq, O;kid fn'kk funsZ'k fuxZr fd;s x;s gSa] ftlds vuqlkj /ofu iznw"k.k ds fofu;eu ,oa fu;a=.k fu;e 2000 ds vuqlkj Mhts ctkus gsrq dksbZ vuqefr ugha gksxh D;ksafd Mhts }kjk mRiUu 'kksj unpleasant and obnoxious Lrj dk gSA Mhts dk fuekZ.k vusd ,EIyhQk;j ls fey dj gksrk gS ftlls mRiUu /ofu vuqKs; lhek ls vf/kd gSA ;g ekuo LokLF; ds fy, xEHkhj [krjk mRiUu djrk gSA

¶16

vr% vki dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa vki Mhts ds iz;ksx ugha djsaxs vU;Fkk vki i;kZoj.k laj{k.k vf/kfu;e 1986 dh /kkjk 15 ds vUrxZr 5 o"kZ rd

¶17

¶18

ds dkjkokl ls rFkk ,d yk[k :i;s rd dh tqekZuk jkf'k ls nf.Mr fd, tk,axsA lkFk gh Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 188 o 290 ,oa 291 ds vUrxZr Hkh vkids fo:) fof/kd dk;Zokgh dh tk,xhA mDr fu;e ,oa funsZ'kksa ds mYya?ku esa fd;s x;s d`R; ds lEcU/k esa vki iw.kZ :i ls mRrjnk;h gksaxsA

¶19

gLrk{kj viBuh;

¶20

Fkkuk izHkkjh Fkkuk dhMxat tuin iz;kxjktA

¶21

From the bare reading of the aforesaid notice, it is clearly revealed that the notice has been issued in compliance of the judgement and order dated 20.8.2019 of this Court in Writ-C No.1216 of 2019. The judgement passed by Division Bench has been annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition.

¶22

From the bare reading of the said judgemet, we find that the judgement has been passed by this Court dealing with such issues where the noise pollution is caused by the people who are operating the D.J in the Barat procession or in parties including religious ceremonies. The Court taking judicial notice and after hearing the parties found it quite inappropriate to operate such music systems in public causing noise pollution and issued following final directions:-

¶23

(i) The District Magistrate shall give adequate publicity in leading newspapers regarding this direction and Rules, 2000. He shall notify the name of the authority under the Rules, 2000 and his contact number. Detailed notice shall be put up in the offices of Divisional Commissioners, District Magistrates, District Court Premises, Police Stations, Municipal Corporation Offices, Development Authorities Offices and prominent places of the city.

¶24

(ii) A toll free number shall be provided to the citizens to make the complaints. If a loudspeaker, public address system, DJ, a Musical Instrument, a sound amplifier or any sound producing instrument is used beyond the permissible limit of sound, a person can make a complaint on telephone number 100 to police or toll free number provided by the

¶25

¶26

authorities. The concerned Police of the area will immediately visit the spot and shall measure the noise level by the equipment (Noise meter application) supplied to it. If it is found that there is violation of Rules, 2000 it will stop the nuisance forthwith and shall inform the appropriate authority regarding complaint and action taken by it. The authority shall take action against offender in terms of Rule 7 of Rules, 2000. The name and identity of the complainant shall not be disclosed to the wrong doer or to any person. Under Rule 7 of Rules,2000 an oral complaint can be made. The facility shall also be made available to send the complaints by SMS, e-mail and WhatsApp. Anonymous complaint shall also be entertained. All the complaints received by the Police under Rule 7 of Rules, 2000 shall be maintained in a register and a copy thereof shall be forwarded to the competent authority. The action taken shall be recorded by the Police in the register.

¶27

(iii) Under the Rules, 2000, no permission for DJ shall be granted by the authority for the reason that noise generated by DJ is unpleasant and obnoxious level. Even if they are operated at the minimum level of the sound it is beyond permissible limits under the Schedule of the Rules, 2000. A DJ is made up of several amplifiers and joint sound emitted by them is more than thousand dB (A). They are serious threat to human health particularly children, senior citizens and patients admitted in the hospitals.

¶28

(iv) The team constituted by the District Magistrate shall make regular visit of their area particularly before commencement of any festival and apprise the organizers regarding compliance of the Rules, 2000 and the directions of Supreme Court and this Court.

¶29

(v) All places of the worship of all religion shall be bound by the provisions of the Rules, 2000 and directions issued by the Supreme Court and this Court. Any breach of the Rules, 2000 shall be treated to be violation of fundamental right of a citizen.

¶30

¶31

(vi) The District Magistrate/ Senior Superintendent of Police shall convene a meeting before commencement of festivals like Dussehera/ Durga Puja, Holi, Shab-e-barat, Muharram, Easter and Christmas festival with organizers and representatives of civil society, to impress upon them to observe the law strictly and in the event of failure the legal consequences that may follow.

¶32

(vii) Whoever fails to comply with or contravenes any of the provisions of Noise Pollution Rules shall be liable for a penalty in terms of section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Non-compliance of the rules attracts the imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and fine which may extend to Rs.1,00,000/-. It is the duty of the authorities of the State to ensure that the offences under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act are duly registered.

¶33

(viii) The State Government is directed to categorize the areas in all the cities of State into industrial, commercial, residential or silence areas/zones for the purpose of implementation of the noise standard in terms of Rule 3 (2) of Rules, 2000. A fresh exercise be conducted in the light of definition provided under Rule 2 (e) and (f) of Rules, 2000. We find that in Prayagraj the zones have been made in breach of the above mentioned Rules.

¶34

(ix) The competent authority under the Rules, 2000 and the SHO /Inspector of concerned Police Station are charged personally with the duty of ensuring compliance of the order of the Supreme Court, extracted above, the Rules, 2000 and this order, failing which they shall be answerable to this Court in contempt jurisdiction. We grant liberty to any aggrieved person to approach this court for appropriate order for compliance of the above order/directions.

¶35

A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to issue necessary directions to the appropriate authorities accordingly. The compliance report shall be sent to the Registrar General of

¶36

¶37

this Court, who shall place it on the record of this case.

¶38

The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.

¶39

Thus in view of the above, this is absolutely clear that the notices have been issued in compliance of the order and directions issued by a concurrent Bench of this Court giving final judgement on the issues.

¶40

Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that any interference with the notice impugned in the present petition would amount to sitting in appeal over the judgement and also interference with the directions issued by another concurrent Bench of this Court, of which neither we have jurisdiction nor, in propriety such an approach is permissible. The petitioner has remedy to challenge the order of Division Bench before the Apex Court, if he is so advised or seek such other remedy as permissible/available in law.

¶41

In view of above, we decline to interfere with the impugned notices and writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed and consigned to record.

¶42

(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶43

Order Date :- 19.9.2019 Gaurav

M/S Sanjay Light House and 14 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sanjay Light House and 14 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Jeet Yadav Vs National Thormal Power Corporation and Another

Ramesh Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Babita Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Kalindi Pulin Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Mathura and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt Guddi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Pratap Singh Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another