Dismissed

M/S Thackers Caterers through Saurin Shah Poa Holder v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Jul 2019WP/3303/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that police cannot stop a petitioner's loudspeaker use on mere complaints without verifying noise levels. Police must measure decibels and order reduction only if limits are exceeded, balancing stakeholder rights.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's complaint against the stipulation was dismissed; police directed to verify noise levels before acting.

1The petitioner engaged in catering business and running a restaurant, a banquet hall at Girgaum Chowpatty has approached this Court being aggrieved by the stipulation contained in the licence/ permission accorded by the Police Department permitting him to use loudspeakers. The grievance of the petitioner is that the permission permitting the petitioner to play loudspeakers in terms of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules,2000 framed under the Environment Protection Act,1986, the stipulation contained therein to the following effect is posing inconvenience to the petitioner:

2The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident of obstruction by the local police is on account of false allegations and frivolous complaints preferred by the respondent Nos.5 and 6. This prompted the petitioner to approach this Court.

On earlier date, we had directed the learned APP to produce before this Court the record of action taken by the Police Authorities when the complaint is received. The learned APP has placed before us the relevant record including the Station Diary and the police report dated 28th February 2019 of Sub-Inspector of D.B.Marg Police Station. Perusal of the said report disclose that on complaint being received, the police officials had visited the place and recorded readings of the noise level at the spot as well as at the residence of the complainant.Aftercarryingoutnecessary verification, a letter has been addressed to the complainant pointing out that no violation of the Noise Pollution Rules is noted. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 makes a serious grievance on occasion since noise pollution level has increased, they were compelled to make a complaint.

4We have taken into consideration the submissions of both the Counsel. We have heard the petitioner who has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court alleging that not permitting to carry out his business on account of obstruction of the Police Department is violative of principles of natural justice whereas the citizens like respondent Nos.5 and 6 are constrained to approach the Police Department to take action for noise pollution, with averment that noise free atmosphere is their fundamental right.

In this situation the Police Authorities have rightly taken recourse to the said Regulation,2000. Whenever any complaint is made, they are duty bound to take into consideration such complaint and if the noise level exceeds the permissible decible limit, then it is imperative for them to take action. However, at the same instance, merely because some frivolous and vexatious complaints are made, without verification and factually measuring the noise levels, the petitioner cannot be obstructed in carrying out his business.

5In such circumstances, we are of clear opinion that the stipulation contained in the permission accorded in favour of the petitioner cannot be considered as blanket power conferred on the Police Officers to stop the function being held in the premises of the petitioner but only after due verification if the noise level exceeds permissible

limit, the Police officials can stall the use of loud speakers or music system in the function . The learned APP on instructions made a categorical statement that the police need not stall the function of the petitioner and running of his business which include playing of music for which due permission is sought by him. However, if any such complaints are received from the citizens, the police officials will verify as they have done in the past and when any violation is noted, then the petitioner can be asked to reduce the noise level with the clear understanding in mind that the matter has to be looked into from the angle of all the stakeholders involved i.e the petitioner, respondent Nos.5 and 6 as well as police Department.

6It is always open for the Police officials to measure the noise level at the spot/venue where the function is in progress. We say nothing more than this and dispose of this petition. We make it clear Police officials are free to issue directions to the petitioner to bring the noise level within permissible limits if found to be exceeding.

M/S Thackers Caterers through Saurin Shah Poa Holder v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Thackers Caterers through Saurin Shah Poa Holder v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Patel Profile Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bank of Maharashtra and 3 Others

Sudin Mohan Gawade Vs Konkan Railway Corp. Ltd. and Anr.

Arrow Engineering Ltd. through Vineet Ramesh Malhotra and Anr. Vs the Superintendent of Police and Ors.

Mr. Sukdeo Chatrulal Darveshi Vs the Vasai Virar City Municipal Corp. and Ors.

Najma@Rasidakhatun Naim Khan@Manna Shelaiwali Bhabhi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kaviraj Shrikrushna Gathe Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Dept. of Electricity Transmission, Mumbai and Ors.