Dismissed

P Bala Murali Krishna v. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited

NGT13 Aug 2024Original Application No. 66/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired ISRO scientist applied for a night flying curfew and noise reduction direction against Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) airport, alleging noise pollution. The Tribunal, acknowledging Article 21 rights, balanced environmental concerns with national interest in defence infrastructure. It declined the curfew and shifting orders due to regulatory exemptions for defence operations and impr

What did the court decide?

Prayers to impose a night curfew on landing/taking off of aircraft between 10:00 PM and 06:00 AM and to shift operations were declined.

P Bala Murali Krishna vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶2

Tuesday the 13th day of August, 2024.

¶3

Original Application No. 66 of 2023 (SZ) (Through Video Conference)

¶4

IN THE MATTER OF

¶5

P. Bala Murali Krishna,
No.8/1052, Sri Sai Nilayam,
8th Main, Chowdeswari Layout,
Marathahalli, Bangalore,
Karnataka-560037.

¶6

...Applicant(s)
Versus
1. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,
Airport Services Centre (BC), HAL,
Bangalore, Karnataka- 560017.
2. Union of India,
Rep by its Secretary,
Ministry of Environment and Climate Change,
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jorbagh Road, New Delhi- 110003.
3. The Chief Secretary to Govt. Of Karnataka
Govt. Secretariat, Room No. 320,
3rd Floor, Vidhanasoudha,
Bangalore- 560001.
4. Central Pollution Control Board,
Rep by its Chairman,
Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi- 110032.
5. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board,
Rep by its Chairman,
Parisara bhavan, No.49, Church Street,
Bengaluru-560001.
(suo mtu impleaded as per order dated 30.05.2023)
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Mr. P. Bala Murali Krishna (Party in Person)
For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Ravi, Sr. Adv. a/w. Mr. Sanjeev for R1.
Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw represented Mr.
Darpan K.M. for R3.
Mr. R. Thirunavukarasu for R4.
Mr. Sankar Vignesh represented Mr. M.R.
Gokul Krishnan for R5.

¶7

¶8

Judgment Reserved on: 1^st July, 2024

¶9

CORAM :

¶10

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana , Judicial Member

¶13

The above application is filed by a retired scientist of Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) raising the issue of wide ranging dimensions relating to noise pollution and the implications thereof.

¶14

He is a citizen residing in Bangalore, Marathahali area. It is complained that the people around that area are undergoing a great deal of suffering from the incessant noise emanating from the passenger flights, air force flights, jets, helicopters etc., flying from the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) Airport. He has complained that the HAL airport treats the area as a playground and plying the flights day and night.

¶15

The applicant in support of his case had attached a few annexures. Annexure-1 is regarding an article which highlights the importance of sleep which is a biological imperative. Undisturbed sleep of sufficient length is essential for daytime alertness and performance, quality of life and health. The curtailed or disturbed sleep results in negative health such as obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure etc. The article highlights about the results from the epidemiological studies and the WHO noise guidelines.

¶16

¶17

Annexure-2 is an article from the Wikipedia which highlights that the night flying restrictions are common at airports in Europe and most airports in Germany have restrictions and curfews during the night. Several night flying restrictions including full night flight bans have been introduced in order to ensure that residents living near airports can sleep at night.

¶18

Annexure-3 relates to the fines proposed by CPCB for noise pollution violations. It also refers to the fact that CPCB laid down the permissible noise level in India for different areas. Noise pollution rules have defined the acceptable level of noise in different zones for both daytime and night time. In industrial areas, the permissible limit is 75dB for daytime and 70dB at night. In commercial areas, it is 65dB for day time and 55dB at night, while in residential areas it is 55dB and 45dB during daytime and night respectively. Additionally the State Government have declared „silent zones‟ which includes areas that lie within 100m of the premises of schools, colleges, hospitals and courts.

¶19

Annexure-4 is a newspaper item published in the Economic Times dated 05.04.2016 which has quoted the question asked by the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi “why don‟t you apply night flying restrictions at airports”.

¶20

Annexure-5 is once again a newspaper item published in The New Indian Express, Karnataka Edition dated 25.02.2020 which reported “After a decade, talks to open HAL Airport for short-haul civilian flights”.

¶21

Annexure-6 is again a newspaper report of The New Indian Express dated 24.10.2021 “Handing over HAL Airport to BIAL on cards”. The newspaper item refers to the revival of HAL airport for domestic operations were rekindled and handing over to Bengaluru

¶22

¶23

International Airport Ltd. (BIAL) which manages Kempegowda International Airport is under consideration. It is also stated that the HAL airport can be made operational for domestic flights, only if BIAL agrees to waive the clause that BIAL does not allow any operation of commercial flights within 150 km radius of Kempegowda International Airport for 25 years.

¶24

Based on the above documents filed as annexures, the applicant is seeking a direction to HAL airport officials not to exceed the stipulated noise level of 55dB during daytime and 45dB at night and also avoid night flying between 10:00PM and 05:00AM in the

¶25

interest of the people‟s health.

¶26

The Central Pollution Control Board, which is the 4^th respondent, has filed a report. The report refers to a notification G.S.R. 568(E) dated 18.06.2018 issued by the MoEF&CC notifying the Ambient Air Quality standards with respect to noise in airport noise zone which are as follows:

¶27

S.No	Industry	Type of Airports	Limits in d	B (A) Leq*
			Day time	Night time
112	Airport	Busy Airports	70	65
		All other airports excluding newly proposed airports	65	60

¶28

*dB(A) Leq denotes the time-weighted average of the level of sound in decibels on scale A which is relatable to human hearing. A daytime from 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM and a night time from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM are considered for time-weighted average.

¶29

Busy Airport- for the purpose of noise management at airports, a busy airport shall be defined as “a civilian airport which has more than 50,000 aircraft movements per year (a movement being a take-off or a landing)” excluding those purely for training purposes on light aircraft.

¶30

Other Airports- an airport having more than 15000 but less than 50000 aircraft movement annually.

¶31

Proposed Airports-airports that are not functional yet and is under development.

¶32

¶33

In the above notification note-ii states that the above specified limits shall have a tolerance limit of 10dB (A) Leq. The note-iii states that the specified limit excludes defence aircraft and aircraft landing and take-off noise from all runways and aircraft engine/ground run-ups, helipad locations earmarked by Airport Operator for this purpose. In the said notification Clause v states that the noise limits specified in above shall replace and supersede the ambient air quality in respect of noise limits of the following existing zones (a) Silence, (b) residential and (c) Commercial areas.

¶34

The notification further states compliance of noise levels applicable to airport noise zone as specified above shall lie with the airport operator and overseen by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation. Airport operators shall prepare Noise Management Plan for compliance of the airport noise standards.

¶35

The Karnataka Pollution Control Board, which is the 5^th respondent , has filed its action taken report. The report states that HAL-ASC has obtained consent for operation from the Pollution Control Board for facilitating servicing of aircrafts and HAL aerodrome on 01.10.2022 which is valid upto 30.09.2031. However, HAL was directed to submit a reply with reference to the complaint made in the application and informed to monitor the noise levels at their premises from a MoEF&CC approved and NABL accredited laboratory on 24 hours basis and submit the monitored report to Karnataka Pollution Control Board.

¶36

¶37

In addition to this HAL was required to install online continuous ambient air quality monitoring station (CAAQMS) within their premises in the interest of public and environment and capture the ambient air quality of that particular area by considering it as a corporate social responsibility. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board also conducted noise monitoring for continuous 03 days from 06.09.2023 to 09.09.2023 at a residential location near HAL where the HAL aircrafts pass by. The monitoring results for the 72 hours are as follows:

¶38

Date & time of monitoring Monitoring location Result (dB) Instrument used
LAeq(avg)
Readings of day time & night time basis
06.09.2023 (10:20 am to Within the premises 71.1 Noise dosimeter
10:00 pm)-day of Sobha Palladian viz.,Model: S12
06.09.2023 & 07.09.2023 Apartment at 70.5 (SLM/Noise
(10:00 pm to 06:00 am)- Khatha no. 921, Sy. Dosimeter),
Night No. 120/1/1,2,3 SI.No.
07.09.2023 (06:00 am to Doddanekundi 70.6 SV10MM021067 &
10:00 pm)-day village, K.R. Puram SV10MM020208 and
07.09.2023 & 08.09.2023 Hobli, Bengaluru 70.56 Manufacture: SV
(10:00 pm to 06:00 am)- East Taluk, Corporation/Korea.
Night Bengaluru.
08.09.2023 (06:00 am to 72.91
10:00 pm)-day
08.09.2023 & 09.09.2023 74.04
(10:00 pm to 06:00 am)-
Night
09.09.2023 (06:00 am to 72.7
10:20 pm)-day
Readings of 24 hour basis
From 10:20 am of Within the premises 69.10 Noise dosimeter
06.09.2023 to 10:20 am of of Sobha Palladian viz.,Model: S12
07.09.2023 Apartment at (SLM/Noise
From 10:20 am of Khatha no. 921, Sy. 67.96 Dosimeter),
07.09.2023 to 10:20 am of No. 120/1/1,2,3 SI.No.
08.09.2023 Doddanekundi SV10MM021067 &
From 10:20 am of village, K.R. Puram 72.33 SV10MM020208 and
08.09.2023 to 10:20 am of Hobli, Bengaluru Manufacture: SV
09.09.2023 East Taluk, Corporation/Korea.
Bengaluru.

¶39

The report states that the HAL campus is surrounded by industrial and residential land use zone. Since the monitoring was done in the residential premises, the results are compared with noise level standard stipulated for residential area which is exceeding the stipulated standards both in day time and night time. However, the noise level readings recorded are not only because of HAL aircrafts

¶40

¶41

but also due to surrounding ambient noise, namely, vehicle movements, horns, people talking/shouting/screaming etc. Further as per MoEF&CC notification dated 18.06.2018, Ambient Air Quality standards in respect of noise for airport noise zone has been stipulated with the tolerance limit of 10dB(A) Leq. The specified limit excludes defence aircraft and aircraft landing and takeoff noise from all runways and aircrafts engine/ground runups, helipad locations earmarked by airport operators.

¶42

The State Pollution Control Board further states that HAL is in operation since 1941 without interruption and it has been facilitating test flying requirement of newly manufactured, overhauling and designing prototype aircraft. Several defence establishment have been time and again using the HAL airport to carry out test flying activities vis-a-vis carried defence projects of national importance. In addition, the Aircraft & Systems Testing Establishment (ASTE), which is a premier establishment in the Indian Air Force (IAF) that conducts flight testing of aircraft, airborne systems and weapon stores prior to their induction into IAF has been using the HAL infrastructure extensively for decades. It is evident from the foregoing that HAL and HAL airport, Bengaluru and its associated airspace are valuable assets since its infrastructure and facilities are being largely used by varied defence establishments and agencies for several projects of national importance and in national interest.

¶43

The report specifically mentions that domestic and international flights which were operated till 23.05.2008 was closed for commercial operations on 16.05.2008. The unprecedented pace

¶44

¶45

and sudden growth in population had given rise to development in and around HAL airport making it a crowded area. Reopening of HAL airport for civil commercial operations is in pipeline considering the phenomenal growth of civil aviation and for effective utilization of existing infrastructure. The HAL is a defence airport and all activities including testing and flying of different aircraft and jets are being undertaken on behalf of Ministry of Defence, Government of India in the national interest.

¶46

The Pollution Control Board has stated that Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has already submitted before the Tribunal in the case relating to Delhi airport limited and others that all aircraft operating in India are compliant with noise standard requirement as laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation and UN agency. The Pollution Control Board also has specifically stated that the HAL operations cannot be moved to Jakkur or Yelahanka airport since Jakkur/Yelahanka airport is a training airport with a limited runway length. It is specific case of the Pollution Control Board that the recent notification to amend the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 laying down the ambient air quality standards with respect to noise in airport noise zone will not apply to HAL airport.

¶47

The 1^st respondent-HAL in its reply statement has stated that it is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its division in Bangalore and other parts of the country. It is a premier public sector undertaking functioning under the control of the Department of Defence Production, Government of India and is engaged in the design, development and manufacture of

¶48

¶49

Aircraft, Defence systems and accessories which are used in the defence of the nation. In addition, the HAL is also involved in maintenance and overhauling of the aircraft, testing and training of test pilots.

¶50

The HAL airport, Bengaluru is operational since 1941 without interruption and has been facilitating test flying requirements of newly manufactured aircrafts, overhauling and designing of prototype aircraft. Apart from Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Centre for Airborne Systems (CABS), National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL) etc., have been time and again using the HAL airport to carry out test flying activities vis-a-vis various projects of national importance. The HAL was operating domestic and international flights until 2008 with 360 aircraft movements every day and handling 10.2 million passengers on a 24x7 basis. However it was closed for commercial operations on 16.05.2008 based on Concession Agreement between the Civil Aviation and the private airport operator i.e. Bangalore International Airport. It is also admitted that the reopening of the HAL for civil commercial operations is in the pipeline considering the phenomenal growth of civil aviation and for effective utilisation of the existing infrastructure.

¶51

Regarding the complaint made by the applicant with respect to noise pollution , it is stated that as per MoEF&CC notification dated 18.06.2018, ambient air quality standards are laid down with respect to noise in airport noise zone based on the

¶52

¶53

classification of the airports as busy airports, and all other airports excluding the proposed airports. For busy airports, a limit of 70dB during day time and 65 dB during night time has been laid down as permissible noise limits as per the said notification with a tolerance limit of 10dB (A) Leq.

¶54

The HAL has stated that the noise standards within the overall boundary of airports was to be equivalent and applicable as “industrial zone” and the noise limit specified in the said notification for areas falling under the airport noise zone was to replace and supersede the ambient air quality in respect of noise limits of the zones such as silence, residential and commercial areas. The noise standards within the overall boundary of airports is to be applicable as industrial areas i.e., day time 75 dB (A) Leq and night time 70 dB(A) Leq as per the Noise (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 which is to be measured at different points of airport boundary and then averaged. In view of the exclusion carved out under the said notification for defence aircraft, the ambient air quality standards with respect to noise in airport zones will not be applicable to HAL airport which is predominantly a defence airport wherein all activities including testing and flying of different aircrafts and jets are undertaken for various defence projects by various establishments on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India in national interest.

¶55

The Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) regulations requires the airport operators to develop a noise abatement procedure specific to their airport to reduce noise such as (a) continuous descent approach in place of step down approaches and continuous climb

¶56

¶57

operations, (b) optimum and efficient utilisation of all operational runways on a fixed hourly basis to evenly distribute the noise generated during take-offs and landings, (c) identify sensitive runways and flight paths from community annoyance point of view, (d) engine run-up management procedure by identifying such locations where engine run-ups can be performed, (ef) GPU/APU Management procedure and provision of fixed electrical ground power in order to minimize the use of ground power unit and auxiliary power unit during aircraft parking at bay.

¶58

The 1^st respondent has stated that aircraft operators are also required to develop a procedure to adopt low power and low drag operation in conjunction with continuous climb and descent approach wherein the airlines is required to follow noise abatement take-off or approach procedure designed to optimize the distribution of noise on the ground while maintaining the required level of safety. Finally, the airport operators are also required to carry out engine run-up only at locations earmarked by airport operators for this purpose and they were required to follow use of noise preferential routes to avoid noise-sensitive areas on departure and arrival including use of turns to direct aircraft away from noise sensitive areas located under or adjacent to the usual take-off flight paths as designed by the operator.

¶59

As per the Regulation 2 of the Civil Aviation Regulation, the said regulation are not applicable to flights undertaken by Ministry of Defence in the national interest and for carrying VVIP, Head of States and other eminent personalities and under any emergency situation where it is not possible to follow noise abatement

¶60

¶61

procedure due to technical reasons from safety point of view. Further flights engaged in search and rescue, patrolling, firefighting, humanitarian missions, emergency medical service purposes were also exempted from the requirements mentioned in the CAR. In view of the above exception under Regulation 2 of the Civil Aviation Regulations the same shall not apply to HAL airport which is predominantly a defence airport wherein all activities including testing and flying of different aircrafts and jets are undertaken for various defence projects by various establishments on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.

¶62

Even otherwise, it is stated that the noise levels monitored on a 24 hours basis by M/s Sneha Test House which is approved by MoEF&CC and NABL accredited agency it is found that the noise levels at the HAL premises during the day time as well as during the night time are within the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise. Therefore, the allegation of the complainant that the noise produced at the HAL airport during day time as well as the night time is beyond the ambient air quality limits amounting to noise pollution are baseless.

¶63

Regarding the Night Curfew , the 1^st respondent states that none of the regulation pertaining to noise management of aircraft operations at airports currently in force within India contemplates night curfews preventing flight operations in airports during the night time. On the contrary, they only lay down restrictions with respect to permissible noise limits along with tolerance limits during night time within which the operators are expected to operate and function. Even otherwise, the HAL being

¶64

¶65

predominantly a defence airport the noise level prescribed under the said notification are not applicable.

¶66

Regarding the night curfew already this Tribunal has a occasion to deal with it in Society for Protection of Culture Heritage, Environment, Traditions and Promotions of National Awareness (CHETNA) Vs Union of India- Appeal No. 60 of 2013 and ors . It was held that to strike a balance between environmental protection in relation to noise pollution and other substantive policies founded on socio-economic principles, public good and necessity and thereby permit the State to carry on an activity which is in the interest of the Country and public at large. It was held that the rights of the people are subject to restrictions which have to be reasonable. Therefore, the night curfew relief was declined. Even otherwise considering the nature of activities undertaken at HAL airport which includes various defence projects of national interest, under no circumstances such activities can be paused or stopped during night time. It is specifically pointed out that the residence of the applicant is not even near the airport runway but it is situated near the flight path.

¶67

Regarding the shifting of the HAL , It is stated the provisions of the Aircraft Act, 1934, it was expected that aerodromes be constructed far away from residential areas of a city in order to protect residences from the noise created by frequent take off and landing. Accordingly, the HAL airport was built in the year 1941. HAL was constructed at a distance from the overtly populated residential areas but due to the sudden growth in the population, the urban areas in and around HAL airport became crowded. The

¶68

¶69

population in and around HAL airport has increased considerably in the last 02 decades possible due to a sudden upsurge in industries in and around the area.

¶70

Further shifting of the operations to any other establishment from HAL is also misconceived as HAL is not just a conventional airport like other airports where only airport operations are taking place. It is engaged in activities such as research and development of new defence aircrafts/helicopters, extensive manufacture as well as testing of such defence aircrafts which take place inside the HAL airport premises. Further maintenance and repairs of defence aircrafts are also carried out at the said premises. The 1^st respondent submits that for carrying out the activities as stated above, large establishments have been setup wherein the requisite high-end equipments have been placed and extensive facilities have been created inside the HAL airport premises. Therefore, shifting of such activity would be unviable and would cost the public exchequer massively. As the airport operations at the HAL premises are conducted in an area of 700 acres out of the total extent of 2450 acres approximately shifting is next to impossible.

¶71

The other residents in and around the entire airport like that of the applicant have consciously taken the decision to settle down around the airport area with the knowledge about the existence of the airport and with regard to the operations conducted at the airport with defence aircrafts. The local authority has made it mandatory for construction of high rise buildings within a radius of 20 km to obtain NOC from the airport authorities for height clearance. It is also specifically stated that all allotees of high rise

¶72

¶73

buildings are also directed to execute an undertaking “ Not to complain/claim compensation against aircraft noise, vibrations, damages etc.

¶74

The question that arises for consideration is whether the applicant is entitled for relief he has sought for in the application against the HAL.

¶75

The complaint of the applicant is that he is living close to the HAL which is a defence establishment dealing with Aeronautical Development Agency, defence research etc. The complaint is that the operation of the aircraft both during day and night time are causing noise pollution as they exceed noise standards prescribed.

¶76

First of all HAL is not airport like any other conventional airport but it is engaged in the activities of research and development of new defence aircrafts, helicopters and testing of such defence aircrafts take place inside the airport premises. Further for carrying out such activities large establishment have been setup in a total area of 700 acres out of 2450 acres of land. Besides maintenance and repairs of defence aircrafts are also carried out at the said premises. It is also involved in the training of pilots, who are trained to navigate during day hours and also during night hours.

¶77

Regarding the noise standards within the overall boundary of the airport, the MoEF&CC had already notified ambient air quality with respect to noise in airport noise zone by notification dated 18.06.2018. As per the said notification, standards were laid down with respect to noise in airport noise zone based on the

¶78

¶79

classification of the airports as busy airports, and all other airports excluding the proposed airports. For busy airports a limit of 70dB and 65 dB and for other airports 65dB and 60dB has been prescribed during day time and night time respectively. But the said notification excluded defence aircraft and aircraft landing and taking off noise from all runways and aircraft engine/ground runups, helipad locations earmarked by Airport Operator for this purpose.

¶80

While defining a busy airport as having more than 50,000 aircraft movement per year, other airports are defined as more than 15,000 but less than 50,000 aircraft movement annually. The day time shall mean 06:00 AM to 10:00 PM and the night time shall be 10:00 PM to 06:00 AM. The specified limit shall have a tolerance limit of 10dB (A) Leq. Note-(iii) of the Notification No. G.S.R. 568(E) dated 18.06.2018 excludes defence aircraft and aircraft landing and take-off noise from all runways.

¶81

At the instance of the applicant, the Karnataka Pollution Control Board also conducted noise monitoring for continuous three days at a residential location near the HAL. The reading of the day time and night time basis is also furnished by the Pollution Control Board. The Pollution Control Board has observed that the noise level recordings are not only because of HAL but also due to the surrounding ambient noise, namely, vehicle movements, horns, etc.

¶82

For the airports, the day time is 70dB and night is 65dB with the tolerance limit of 10dB(A)Leq. If that is so, the ambient air quality

¶83

¶84

standards are within the limits including tolerance limit. Nevertheless the notification excludes defence aircraft and aircraft landing and taking off noise from all runways operated for defence purposes.

¶85

It is not in dispute that the HAL and associated airspace are valuable assets of the nation since its infrastructure and facilities are being largely used by varied defence establishments and agencies for several projects of national importance and in national interest. Admittedly the commercial operations are closed from 16.05.2008 as per SO No. 1170(E) which states that “with effect from 00.01 hrs of 23.05.2008 the HAL airport at Bangalore will no longer be available for commercial civil aviation operations except at times of national emergency”. The international air-transport association code BLR for the entire airport is hereby transferred to the Bangalore International Airport at Devanahalli with effect from the above date and time. Notwithstanding the above, general civil aviation services other than those relating to commercial aircraft operation may continue to be operated at HAL airport”.

¶86

From the above, it is evident that the HAL is not plying any commercial aircrafts. Therefore, when the HAL is exempted or excluded from the purview of the notification GSR 568(E) dated 18.06.2018, the ambient air quality standards may not be applicable.

¶87

Regarding the night curfew sought for by the applicant, it is specifically argued by the 1^st respondent that none of the regulation pertaining to the noise management of aircraft

¶88

¶89

operations at airports currently in force within India contemplates night curfews preventing flight operations in airports during the night time. They only lay down restrictions with respect to permissible noise limits along with tolerance limits during night time within which the operators are expected to operate and function. In this regard already this Tribunal in Appeal No. 60 of 2013-Society for Protection of Culture Heritage, Environment, Traditions and Promotions of National Awareness (CHETNA) Vs Union of India dated 24.11.2017 has held as follows:

¶90

........In the present day, the globe has turned into one big family and the distances from one country to another, from one State to another, from one city to another are covered in short durations, thus, making it necessary that the effective transportation means are provided not only to the people of India but also to the entire global community. Providing an effective, efficient and resourceful airport is also the obligation of State, while equally it is the obligation of the State to ensure compliance to the prescribed noise levels. The Tribunal has to strike a balance between the two and permit the State to carry on an activity which is in the interest of the country and the public at large and is not entirely derogatory to the interest of environment. The rights of people are subject to the restrictions which have to be reasonable. To say that airport should be shut for the entire night would neither be in consonance with the Principle of Sustainable Development nor would it be an option open to the State in the peculiar circumstances prevailing internationally today. Rather every effort should be made by the State and other stakeholders and they must take all mitigation measures to ensure that the noise levels are brought to the possible minimum extent.......

¶91

No doubt the above order has mentioned that every effort should be made by the State and other stakeholders and they must take all mitigation measures to ensure that the noise levels are brought to the possible minimum extent. The applicant who himself is scientist worked in ISRO having its headquarter in Bangalore should know much better about the functioning of the aircrafts and the noise they make while landing and takeoff or even while flying.

¶92

¶93

Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for the Protection of life and personal liberty not only of mere survival or existence but it guarantees the right of person to live with human dignity. Article 21 gives protection of life whether limits only to protection of limb or faculty or does it go further and embrace something more. The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms.

¶94

Anyone who wishes to live in peace, comfort and quiet within his house has a right to prevent the noise as pollutant reaching him. None can claim a right to create noise even in his own premises which would travel beyond his precincts and cause nuisance to neighbours or others. Noise is more than just a nuisance. Many a times we just ignore the noise. However in the modern days the noise has become one of the major pollutant having serious affect on the human health. The right conferred under Article 19 are not absolute as one cannot create noise and amplify the sound and take protection under Article 19(1). Albeit nobody can be compelled to hear a noise beyond a decided level. It is a right which comprehends freedom to be free from what one desires to be free from. If it is a noise that generates from a loudspeaker or a radio or any other form, he can decline to hear the same by switching it off. But when a person is forced to hear what he wishes not to hear, that will be an invasion of his personal right.

¶95

In the instant case the applicant is seeking for a night curfew so that he may be saved from agony of the flights at least during the

¶96

¶97

night hours. But as pointed out earlier there are no regulations in India and the issue of noise pollution has not been taken with seriousness as it ought to have been taken. Besides as already stated none of the regulation pertaining to noise management of aircraft operations at airports currently in force within India contemplates night curfews preventing flight operations in airports during the night time.

¶98

The right that is guaranteed is not absolute and unqualified but it is only with a reasonable restriction made by the State provided the freedom is not affected. It is to be noted that any fundamental right cannot exist in isolation. The Fundamental Right of a person may have to co-exist in harmony with the exercise of another Fundamental Right by others and also with a reasonable and valid exercise of power by the State in light of the Directive Principles in the interest of social welfare as a whole. With this in mind a balance has to be struck.

¶99

Admittedly the HAL has been operating from the year 1941 and it is ascertained from the applicant that he has purchased the property only after 2010 and he has moved in the premises after his retirement in the year may be in the year 2019. Excepting the applicant, nobody else so far has complained about the HAL operation. Even the local authorities would have granted permission only subject to the HAL operating and the individual owners not to object to the operations of the HAL.

¶100

Either shifting of the HAL or shifting the operation of the HAL to Jakkur or Yelahanka is also not possible as the applicant has no

¶101

¶102

right to demand besides the practical difficulties of switching over the operations. Admittedly it is more than 2000 acres of land and in which about 700 acres are in operation. As pointed out earlier, it is only the urbanisation that has let to this problem, therefore, the applicant cannot demand to heed to the reliefs sought for.

¶103

Accordingly, we decline the prayers of the applicant to impose a night curfew on landing or taking off of the aircraft and airport in the night hours between 10:00 PM and 06:00 AM.

¶104

As it is not possible to shift the operations of HAL which is a

¶105

defence establishment, the said relief is also declined.

¶106

As the monitoring reports suggest the noise levels within permissible decibels with the tolerance limit of 10dB(A)Leq. Any kind of mitigating measures for reducing the noise pollution also does not arise.

¶107

In view of the above, the Original Application is disposed of.

¶108

............................................................J.M.
(Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana)

¶109

.......................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) Internet – Yes/No All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

¶110

O.A. No.66/2023(SZ) 13th August, 2024. (AM)

¶111

¶112

Before the National Green
Tribunal
Southern Zone (Chennai)
O.A. No. 66 of 2023 (SZ)
P. Bala Murali Krishna
Vs.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
& Ors.
O.A No. 85/2023(SZ)
6th February, 2024. (AM)

¶113

P Bala Murali Krishna v. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Bala Murali Krishna v. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanket Sahu vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Amit Kumar vs State of Rajasthan

Sohan Vir Singh vs Virender

Rajendra Sharma vs

Samarpal Singhgrewal and Other vs

Sunil Kumar Nigam vs

News Item Titled "Microplastic in West Bengal,S Digha and Odisha,S Puri Seawater at Alarming Levels" Appearing in the Times of India Dated 04.08.2024 vs

Ashish Sharma vs

Jeevan George vs Central Pollution Control Board

Sk Vijaykumar vs Seiaa

E.V. Sampath vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Rep by Its Member Secretary

M Narsimharao vs the Member Secretary Telanagana State Pollution Control Board

M/S Sri Mahalakshmi Hatcheries vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Bachu Naga Venkateswara Rao vs State Andhra Pradesh