Indumati Wd/O Narayanrao Turaskar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary

Bombay HC8 Jun 2026WP/376/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Criminal Writ Petition No. 376 of 2026; decided 08-06-2026; Coram: Urmila Joshi-Phalke & Nivedita P. Mehta, JJ.; noise pollution; loudspeakers at religious establishments (mosques, temples); Bhandara; senior citizen petitioner; Environment (Protection) Act 1986; Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000 Rules 3-9; representation dated 08-12-2025 to Collector, Municipal Council and Superintendent of Police; direction to dispose of representation within four weeks by reasoned and speaking order; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Prayer clause (i) allowed: respondent Nos. 2 to 4 directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation within four weeks by passing a reasoned and speaking order; petition disposed of accordingly. ¶¶18

Indumati Wd/O Narayanrao Turaskar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer clause (i) allowed: respondent Nos. 2 to 4 directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation within four weeks by passing a reasoned and speaking order; petition disposed of accordingly.

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos. 2 to 4 should be directed to consider, decide and dispose of the petitioner's representation regarding alleged illegal loudspeaker noise pollution by passing a reasoned and speaking order in a time-bound manner.

¶¶12

Court's answer

Considering the limited prayer and the facts indicating some substance in the petitioner's contention of violation of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, the court held that prayer clause (i) of the petition deserved to be allowed.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation within a period of four weeks by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition (Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench) by a senior citizen resident of Bhandara alleging that religious establishments (mosques, temples, etc.) in the vicinity of her property had permanently installed multiple loudspeakers at elevated heights, used daily from as early as 4:30 a.m. at excessively high decibel levels without valid permission, in violation of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (Rules 3 to 9). Her representation dated 08-12-2025 to the Collector, Municipal Council and Superintendent of Police, Bhandara had not been acted upon. Counsel did not press prayer clauses (ii) to (iv). Finding some substance in the contention of violation of the 2000 Rules, the Division Bench (Joshi-Phalke and Mehta, JJ.) allowed prayer clause (i) and directed respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to dispose of the representation within four weeks by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Petition disposed of accordingly (order dated 08-06-2026).

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:7444-DB

¶2

1 wp 376.26

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 376 OF 2026

¶5

( Indumati wd/o Narayanrao Turaskar ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary and others )

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

¶8

Mr. A.R. Saxena, Counsel for the petitioner,

¶9

Mr. Amit Chutke, Addl.P.P. for the respondents/State.

¶10

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE & NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 08-06-2026

¶12

By this petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to consider, decide and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 08-12-2025 by passing reasoned and speaking order in time bound manner as may be fixed by this Court.

¶13

The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not press prayer clauses (ii) to (iv) of the petition. As per the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is resident of Bhandara and a senior citizen. Certain religious establishments (mosques, temples, etc.) situated in the immediate vicinity of the petitioner’s property have permanently installed multiple loudspeakers at elevated heights and are using the same on a daily basis for broadcasting religious announcements at excessively high decibel levels, commencing as early as 4;30 a.m. and repeatedly throughout the day and causing nuisance pollution. It is further contention of the petitioner that use of such sound amplifying devices is being carried out without any valid permission, without compliance with acoustic norms and in blatant violation of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, more particularly Rules 3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 thereof. It is further contention of the petitioner that the

¶14

2 wp 376.26

¶15

continuous and excessive noise pollution caused by the said illegal use of loudspeakers has resulted in serious hardship to the petitioner and to the general public nearby, in essence causing an obstruction to normal enjoyment and use of her property. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the representation to respondent No.2-Collector, Bhandara, respondent No. 3- Municipal Council, Bhandara and respondent No.4-Superintendent of Police at Bhandara. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the representation filed on 11-12-2025, no action was taken by the respondent and, therefore, he is seeking directions to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to decide the said representation at the earliest.

¶16

Considering the limited prayer and the facts which sufficiently indicates that there is some substance in the contention of the petitioner as far as the violation of the rules of Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control), Rules 2000, we are of the view of that prayer clause (i) of the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:

¶17

Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of four weeks, by passing reasoned and speaking order.

¶18

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶19

(Nivedita P. Mehta, J.)

¶20

(Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)

¶21

adgokar

¶22

Signed by: MR. P.M. ADGOKAR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 09/06/2026 15:19:25

Indumati Wd/O Narayanrao Turaskar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indumati Wd/O Narayanrao Turaskar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Motilal Rahore vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur and Anr.

M/S Kps Energy Solutions LLP Thr Mr. Jayshih Jaymalbhai Rathod vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Officer in Charge of Cyber Police Station Sadar Nagpur City

Ganesh Devidas Shinde (C-6117) vs Deputy Inspector General Prison, (East Region), Nagpur.

Akash Urf Karan Vinod Thunkekar vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Home Department (Special) Mantralaya Mumbai

Firoz Kazi @ Bali Zahiruddin Kazi vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretar Y Home Department Special Mantralaya Mumbai

Rama S/O Ganga Kodape vs State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station Officer