Dismissed

Dr. Yeshwant Trimbak Oke and Ors. v. Union of India and Somaiya Vidyavihar and Dy. Commissioner of Polic

Bombay HC3 May 2016NMW/651/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the notice of motion seeking a declaration that the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000 do not apply to educational institutions, holding the Rules are applicable and the prayer cannot be granted.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for declaring that Rule 6 of the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000 does not apply to the applicants was dismissed.

Dr. Yeshwant Trimbak Oke and Ors. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

21-nmw-651-03

rrpillai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.651 OF 2003 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2053 OF 2003

¶6

Dr. Yeshwant T. Oke and Ors. ….Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ….Respondents And Somaiya Vidyavihar & Ors. ….Applicants And The Dy.Commissioner of Police ….Co-Respondent Zone VII, Mulund, Mumbai

¶7

Mr.Shanay Shah a/w. Ms.Gauri Rege i/b. M/s. Nankani & Associates for Petitioner.

¶8

Mr.Nimay Dave a/w. Ms.V.Shah i/b. M/s.Hariani & Co. for Applicants. Mr.Rui Rodrigues a/w. Mr.G.Hariharan i/b. Mr.Pankaj Kapoor for Respondent no.1 – UOI.

¶9

Ms.Uma Palsule – Desai for Respondent no. 2 and 3 - State

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND P.D.NAIK, JJ. DATE : 3^rd May, 2016.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

There are three prayers in this Notice of Motion. Prayer (c) is worked out with the passage of time. Even the prayer (d) which relates to conducting of Gyan Yagna, is substantially worked out. Prayer (b) reads thus :

¶13

“(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to clarify that in view of the order dated 19^th December 2003 passed by their Lordships the Hon'ble Chief Justice C.K.Thakkar & Justice A.S.Oka, the provisions of

21-nmw-651-03

rrpillai

Rule 6 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000 do not apply to the Applicants herein (being Educational Institutions) and they are entitled to conduct Gyan Yagna on the said property in accordance with law and subject to compliance of Rule 5 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000.”

¶18

2. We have perused the Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000 ( for short the 'said Rules') . Rule (6) deals with the places which are covered under the Silence Zones / Areas.

¶19

There is no provision in the said Rules which provides that the said Rules are not applicable to Educational institutions. The order dated 19^th December, 2003 passed in the present PIL only lays down that the said Rules have to be implemented.

¶20

Therefore, it is impossible for this Court to grant a declaration that the provisions of the said Rules and Rules (5) and (6) do not apply to the applicants. Therefore, we are unable to grant any relief in this Notice of Motion and the same is dismissed.

¶21

The Writ Petition No. 2053 of 2003 be heard alongwith Appellate Side PIL No.173 of 2010. To be placed on 17^th June, 2016 .

¶22

(P.D.NAIK, J.)

Dr. Yeshwant Trimbak Oke and Ors. v. Union of India and Somaiya Vidyavihar and Dy. Commissioner of Polic

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Yeshwant Trimbak Oke and Ors. v. Union of India and Somaiya Vidyavihar and Dy. Commissioner of Polic

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Forum for Fairness in Education an Ngo Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Sawpnil Madhukar Kashid and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Ramraj Shivanand Shetti Vs Mrs. Seema Ramraj Shetti

Mehjabeen Nazeer Wasta and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vilas Hanumantrao Madigeri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vinay Alias Victor Ram Mahadik Vs Smt. Sarojini Subhash Dalvi and 2 Ors.