The writ petition challenging the rejection of a request to close a noise-polluting power loom unit in a residential area was dismissed. The Court found no illegality in the impugned order, noting the unit's long-standing operation and lack of other complaints, but directed monitoring of noise levels.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.719 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.04.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.719 of 2018
and
W.M.P. Nos.883 and 884 of 2018 and 3025 of 2024
Shanthakumari ... Petitioner
Vs
Erode District.
1/7
W.P.No.719 of 2018
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 22.12.2017 having reference Mu.Mu.16555/2017(C-4) passed by the first respondent, the District Collector, Erode District and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to prohibit the fourth and fifth respondents as per the Rule 8(b) of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, from operating the power loom in the building located at No.10, Palaniyappa 2nd Street, Thavittupalayam, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.P.Senniyangiri For Respondents : Mr. S.J.Mohamed Sathik, Government Advocate (for R1)
Mrs. Shanmugavalli Sekar, Standing Counsel (for R3)
O R D E R
The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by
the first respondent in and by which the request made by the petitioner seeking closure of the power loom unit run by the fourth and fifth respondents, was rejected.
2/7
W.P.No.719 of 2018
3/7
W.P.No.719 of 2018 lodged by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The petitioner also lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Police Station and there was no action on the said complaint. Hence, the petitioner has also filed a Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.8883 of 2017 before this Court. Subsequently, the said complaint was enquired and the same was closed.
4/7
W.P.No.719 of 2018
Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Anthiyur and fourth respondent. In the enquiry, it revealed that the fourth respondent herein has obtained permission from Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Anthiyur to establish a Power Loom unit in the said address and running the business right from the year 1984. Additionally, license fees, professional tax etc. were paid and also the electricity service connection was obtained in the capacity of 10 HP. Therefore, the fourth respondent is running the power loom unit from the year 1984. In the same residential area, there are 156 power looms in 16 units, a Saw Mill and a Coir Factory is also functioning. The Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Salem submitted a report and it reveals that the area where the fourth respondent's power loom unit is being run is a 'Non Classified Area'. There are 80 houses which were assessed for house tax in the said area, close to the power loom unit. Except the petitioner, no one so far lodged any complaint with regard to the high decibel noise and as such, this Court, finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the first respondent and the Writ Petition is devoid of merits.
5/7
W.P.No.719 of 2018
respondent is directed to monitor the ambient noise level of the power looms, which are running in the petitioner's residential area in accordance with law. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
03.04.2024
Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation/Yes/No kv
To
6/7
W.P.No.719 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kv
W.P.No.719 of 2018
03.04.2024
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the noise levels from the power loom unit exceeded the permissible limits for a residential area?
Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek closure of the power loom unit under Rule 8(b) of the Noise Pollution Rules?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shanthakumari
The District Collector, Erode District
S.Prabakar IAS District Collector, Erode District
The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
G.Bharaneeshwaran
Ravi
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
