Tarun Chandra Gayan and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/9

¶2

GAHC010014962014

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:2560

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4679/2014

¶6

TARUN CHANDRA GAYAN and 7 ORS S/O- LT. DAMBRUDHAR GAYAN, R/O- LAOKHOWA ROAD, HAIBARGAON, P.O.- HAIBARGAON, P.S.- NAGAON SADAR, WARD NO. 22 OF THE NAGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD, NAGAON, ASSAM.

¶7

2: RAJ KUMAR BORA S/O- SRI DURGESWAR PATIA R/O- LAOKHOWA ROAD HAIBARGAON P.O.- HAIBARGAON P.S.- NAGAON SADAR WARD NO. 22 OF THE NAGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD NAGAON ASSAM. 3: DURGESWAR PATIA S/O- LT. BHADRA KANTA BORA R/O- LAOKHOWA ROAD HAIBARGAON P.O.- HAIBARGAON P.S.- NAGAON SADAR WARD NO. 22 OF THE NAGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD NAGAON ASSAM. 4: SATYANANDRA PANDEY S/O- SRI RANJIT PANDEY R/O- LAOKHOWA ROAD HAIBARGAON P.O.- HAIBARGAON P.S.- NAGAON SADAR WARD NO. 22 OF THE NAGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD NAGAON ASSAM.

¶8

Page No.# 2/9

¶9

5: ROHINI KUMAR LASKAR S/O- LT. GUNA LASKAR R/O- LAOKHOWA ROAD HAIBARGAON P.O.- HAIBARGAON P.S.- NAGAON SADAR WARD NO. 22 OF THE NAGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD NAGAON ASSAM. 6: KHARGESWAR SAIKIA S/O- LT. DINA SAIKIA R/O- LAOKHOWA ROAD HAIBARGAON P.O.- HAIBARGAON P.S.- NAGAON SADAR WARD NO. 22 OF THE NAGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD NAGAON ASSAM. 7: JOY KANTA SAIKIA S/O- LT. SONESWAR SAIKIA R/O- LAOKHOWA ROAD HAIBARGAON P.O.- HAIBARGAON P.S.- NAGAON SADAR WARD NO. 22 OF THE NAGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD NAGAON ASSAM. 8: DULAL BASUMATARY S/O- LT. KANDUWA KACHARI R/O- LAOKHOWA ROAD HAIBARGAON P.O.- HAIBARGAON P.S.- NAGAON SADAR WARD NO. 22 OF THE NAGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD NAGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., REP. BY ITS SECY., DISPUR, GHY- 6, ASSAM.

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶11

Page No.# 3/9

¶12

ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPTT. REP. BY ITS SECY. DISPUR GHY- 6 ASSAM. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPTT. ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GHY- 6 ASSAM. 4:THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD OF ASSAM REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN BAMUNIMAIDAN GUWAHATI ASSAM. 5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER NAGAON DIST. P.O. and DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM. 6:THE NAGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN P.O. and DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM. 7:THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD OF ASSAM REGIONAL OFFICE L.B. ROAD KAMARPATTI HAIBARGAON NAGAON ASSAM. 8:THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES ASSAM SETHI TRUST BUILDING 2ND FLOOR G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GHY- 5. 9:THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES DIST. FACTORY OFFICE

¶13

Page No.# 4/9

¶14

NAGAON P.O. and DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM. 10:DIPAK SAHA @ BABUL SAHA S/O- LT. REBOTI SAHA PROPRIETOR OF M/S D.R. OIL MILL VILL.- LAOKHOWA ROAD HAIBARGAON P.O.- HAIBARGAON DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S BORA, MS.P SARMA,MR.P K GARODIA

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.R KALITA, MR.B D KONWAR,MR.S C KHOUND(R-6),MR.P J PHUKAN,SC. P.C. BOARD, ASSAM,MR.P KAKATI,MR.N M DUTTA(R-6),GA, ASSAM,MR.R SALOI,MR.R BARUAH(R-6)

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Date : 11-03-2025

¶20

Heard Mr. P.K. Garodia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Barua, learned Standing Counsel, Pollution Control Board, Mr. M. Chetia, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No. 3 and 5 and Mr. S.C. Khound, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and Ms. B. Soren, learned counsel for the respondent No.10.

¶21

2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the noise, air and environment pollution, emanating from Oil Mill, established in their neighborhood on 15.02.2013, by one Dipak Saha @ Babul Saha, respondent No.10 herein. The petitioners have prayed for a direction to restrain the Oil Mill, namely M/s D.R. Oil Mill from its operation and/or for a direction to respondents No.6 and 10 to take necessary measures to bring the air and noise pollution within the prescribed limits.

¶22

Page No.# 5/9

¶23

3. The petitioners are permanent residents of Laokhowa Road, under Ward No.22 of the Nagaon Municipal Board, Haibargaon, P.O. Haribargaon, P.S. Nagaon Sadar, Nagaon, Assam and are living with their families.

¶24

4 . The respondent No.10 has set up an Oil Mill namely, M/s D.R. Oil Mill, in the locality of the petitioners on 15.02.2013. It is contended that the said Oil Mill has been causing high air and noise pollution, as a result of which, the petitioners have not been able to enjoy clean, safe and pollution free environment. The operation of the said mill is causing high air and noise pollution, particularly, due to functioning of oil expeller and seed cleaning machines in the area, as the noise easily emits out of the premises of the mill. It is alleged that the respondent No.10 has not taken any preventive measures to control the emission of noise from the mill. The noise pollution is causing disturbance to the petitioners and their family members, violating the essential biological necessities, as a result of such pollution, the petitioners’ premises have become unfit for human settlement.

¶25

5. The petitioners have filed various representations before the competent authority for redressal of their grievances against the pollution caused by the respondent No.10. However, the authorities have failed to act on the representations and the respondent No.10 has been allowed to run the mill to the detriment of the people living in the said locality.

¶26

6. It is also contended that very low height and minimal width is constructed in some portion of the premises of the said oil mill and noise dampening wall has not been constructed in the boundary wall of the mill premises. As a result, the noise easily travel beyond the premises of the respondent No.10 percolating into the residence of the petitioners. The structure of the Oil Mill is adjacent to the residences of some of the

¶27

Page No.# 6/9

¶28

petitioners and thereby, same is causing huge noise pollution.

¶29

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P. K. Garodia also submits that the maximum allowable noise in the residential area is 55 db during day time and 45 db during night time as per Schedule II of Rule 3 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and Rule 3(1) and 4(1) of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. However, the noise level emanates during the operation of the said mill crosses the said limit, which cannot be permitted. The noise pollution caused by the running of the said mill is hampering the life of the petitioners and their family members. Therefore, the said Oil Mill is liable to be stopped from operation. He submits that the operation of the said mill, particularly, the functioning of seed cleansing machine is causing huge air pollution because of emission of dust, sand and other waste products. The respondent No.10 has failed to take any steps for preventing air pollution. No control equipment or any air pollution control measure has been installed in order to control the emission generated from said the mill. It has caused serious affect to the petitioners and the people living in the area to the extent that it has become difficult to breath. He submits despite several approaches, the respondent authorities have failed to prevent the air pollution caused by the running of the said mill.

¶30

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners have the right to enjoy the clean, safe and pollution free environment, therefore, he prays that either the mill be prevented or stopped from running or the respondent authorities may be directed to take appropriate steps against the respondent No.10 for taking measures to prevent the noise and air pollution in the area.

¶31

9. The respondent No.4, Pollution Control Board has brought on record

¶32

Page No.# 7/9

¶33

the verification and analysis report by way of an additional affidavit.

¶34

10. Mr. S. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Pollution Control Board, by referring to the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4, submits that earlier noise level monitoring at the unit was conducted on 25.11.2013 and as per the report, the noise level was found to be 56dB(A) Leq in the nearest residence from the said mill, which was slightly higher than the permissible limit for residential zone during day time, which is 55dB(A) Leq, therefore, the respondent No.10 was directed to take necessary mitigation measure to bring down the noise level under permissible limit. Thereafter, the Fresh Ambient Air Quality Monitoring, Stack Emission Monitoring and Noise Level Monitoring have been carried out at the unit on 13.02.2019 to evaluate current pollution status of the unit. As per the report of stack emission monitoring, the emission parameters of both the stacks of the unit are within the permissible limit. The report of Ambient Air Quality Monitoring is found as 81 ug/m³ against permissible limit of 80 ug/m³ and SO2 & NO2 were found well within permissible limit. So far as the noise level monitoring is concerned, it is found beyond permissible limit while the mill is in operation, therefore, Mr. S. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel submits that the authorities are taking measures to prevent the air and noise pollution caused by the mill.

¶35

11. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶36

12. The respondent No.10 is running the Oil Mill in the locality, where the petitioners are residing, namely Laokhowa Road, under Ward No.22 of the Nagaon Municipal Board, Haibargaon, P.O. Haribargaon. It is admitted by the Pollution Control Board that as per the Noise Level Monitoring Report carried out on 25.11.2013, the noise level was found to be slightly higher

¶37

Page No.# 8/9

¶38

than the permissible limit for residential area during day time. Therefore, the Respondent No.10 was directed to take necessary mitigation measures to bring down the noise level under permissible limit.

¶39

13 . Thereafter, on 13.02.2019, a Fresh Ambient Air Quality Monitoring, Stack Emission Monitoring and Noise Level Monitoring was carried out to evaluate the pollution status caused by the said mill.

¶40

14 . It is seen that as per the report of stack emission monitoring, the emission parameters of both the stacks of the unit are within the permissible limit. The Ambient Air Quality monitoring was found within the permissible limit. However, the noise level monitoring were found beyond permissible limit, when the said Oil Mill is in operation.

¶41

15 . Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the admitted position of the respondent No.4 i.e., Pollution Control Board that as per the analysis report of noise level monitoring is found beyond permissible limit, I am of the considered view that the respondent authorities are obligated to take actions to prevent the air and noise pollution, which emanates from the running of the said Oil Mill, in the area where the petitioners and other people are residing. The respondent No.10, is also duty bound to prevent such emission and noise pollution from the said mill by taking measures to prevent such pollution in the area. It appears that the respondent authorities have failed in their duties to take measures to prevent such pollution. Equally, the respondent No.10, who is obligated to take measures to prevent the pollution, has also failed to take measures.

¶42

16 . In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the respondent authorities and the respondent No.10 are liable to be directed to take measures to prevent the pollution in the area. Accordingly, the Respondent

¶43

Page No.# 9/9

¶44

authorities and the respondent No.10 are directed to take immediate necessary measures to prevent the air in the area. The respondent authorities are also directed to ensure that the respondent No.10 to take immediate measures to bring the air and noise pollution within the permissible limits in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶45

17 . With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Comparing Assistant

Tarun Chandra Gayan and 7 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Chandra Gayan and 7 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

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

Alimuddin and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Satyam Sewa Sommittee Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sajeda Khatun Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sri Sri Athkhelia Namghar and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 15 Ors.

Sri Sri Athkhelia Namghar and Another Vs the State of Assam and 15 Ors.

Jiten Deka Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.