Disposed¶21

Mahendra Sapre v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Jul 2025PIL/24/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Noise pollution; loudspeaker removal from mosques, madrasas, dargahs and slum areas; enforcement of Noise Pollution Rules; ambient sound; writ of mandamus; Nodal Officer for noise complaints; Maharashtra Pollution Control Board; reliance on directions in Criminal PIL No. 20 of 2015; PIL No. 24 of 2025; Mahendra Sapre v. State of Maharashtra; disposed of; Bombay High Court OOCJ division bench (Aradhe CJ, Marne J); no monetary relief.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; liberty granted to the Petitioner to approach the Nodal Officer appointed for noise pollution complaints; Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and the State (Additional Government Pleader) undertook on instructions that suitable action on the Petitioner's complaint shall be taken expeditiously. ¶21

Mahendra Sapre vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct removal of loudspeakers from the mosques/madrasas/dargahs (Respondent Nos.12-30) and generally from land occupied by slum dwellers, action to maintain ambient sound, and implementation/enforcement of the Noise Pollution Rules, including removal of loudspeakers from mosques across the state.

¶18

Court's answer

The issue raised in the Petition is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by the directions contained in the order passed in Criminal PIL No.20 of 2015.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to approach the Nodal Officer appointed by the State Government to entertain complaints with regard to noise pollution.

¶20

Key takeaways

On instructions, the learned counsel for the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and the learned Additional Government Pleader stated that suitable action on the complaint submitted by the Petitioner shall be taken expeditiously, and accordingly the Public Interest Litigation was disposed of.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, CJ and Sandeep V. Marne, J.), disposed of Public Interest Litigation No. 24 of 2025 (Mahendra Sapre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.), which sought writs of mandamus to remove loudspeakers from Respondent Nos.12-30 (mosques/madrasas/dargahs) and from slum areas, to maintain ambient sound, and to enforce the Noise Pollution Rules, including removal of loudspeakers from mosques across the state. The Court held the issue no longer res integra and squarely covered by the directions in the order passed in Criminal PIL No.20 of 2015; noting that the State Government had in pursuance of those directions appointed a Nodal Officer to entertain noise pollution complaints, it granted the Petitioner liberty to approach the Nodal Officer. The learned counsel for the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and the learned Additional Government Pleader stated on instructions that suitable action on the Petitioner's complaint would be taken expeditiously, whereupon the PIL was disposed of.

¶1

k 1/2 18 pil 24.25 db os.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.24 OF 2025

¶4

Mahendra Sapre ....Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents

¶5

Mr. Prerak Choudhary with Ms. Regina David for the Petitioner. Smt. Vaishali M. Choudhari, Additional GP for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7/State.

¶6

Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye with Mr. Akshay Pansare for Respondent No.4.

¶7

Ms. Usha Singh i/b M/s. Vyas & Bhalwal for Respondent No.8.

¶8

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 21 JULY 2025.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

In this Petition, the Petitioner interalia has prayed for following directions:

¶11

“a. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to be issued to the Respondent No.6 and 7 to direct them to remove the loudspeakers from the Respondent Nos.12-30 (mosques/ madrasas/dargahs) and the slum generally on land occupied by the slum dwellers as land owned by Respondent Nos.8-11.

¶12

b. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to be issued to

¶13

Page No. 1 of 2

¶14

¶15

k 2/2 18 pil 24.25 db os.doc

¶16

the Respondent No.1 to 7 to take necessary action to maintain ambient sound.

¶17

c. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to be issued to the Respondent No.1 to 11 to enforce the Noise Pollution Rules.

¶18

d. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate orders directing that the noise pollution rules be implemented in letter and spirit and that this Hon’ble court be pleased to pass an order that the loudspeakers be removed from all mosques from all across the state.”

¶19

The issue raised in the Petition is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by directions contained in the order passed in Criminal PIL No.20 of 2015.

¶20

In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the State Government has appointed the Nodal Officer to entertain the complaints with regard to noise pollution. We grant liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Nodal Officer.

¶21

In addition, the learned counsel for the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions state that suitable action on the complaint submitted by the Petitioner shall be taken expeditiously. Accordingly, the Public Interest Litigation is disposed of.

¶22

SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM

¶23

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶24

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶25

Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date: 2025.07.22 10:29:50 +0530

¶26

k Page No. 2 of 2

Mahendra Sapre v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Sapre v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shaikh Zakir Shaikh Sagir Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary and Others

Lalit Kumar Sardarmalji Jain vs Municipal Corporation of Greater through Municipal Commissioner

Ratan Soli Luth vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary Ministry of Affairs and Ors.

Just Society Vs Union of India and Anr.

Umesh Shankarrao Bhole vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Department of Agriculture Animal Husbandry Dairy

Prakash Narayan Shukla vs the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi)

Shrimantnamdeo Kadam vs State of Maharashtra the Honble Chief Minister through the Personal Secretary and Ors.

Abhijeet Kantaram Kad and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Prin. Secretary (UD-1) Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Shivshakti Enterprises through Proprietor Vinod Kumar Sharma vs Nuclear Power Corporation of India

Securitrans India Private Limited vs Fis Payment Solutions and Services Private Limited

PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited vs Way2Safe Imf Private Limited

Mumbai Teachers Democratic Front (Tdf) through Its President vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary Department of School Education and Sports

Dinesh Ananda Sakpal vs the General Manager, Best Undertaking

Union of India through the General Manager Central Railway vs Plr Hc Rbr (Jv)