Disposed

Jerome v. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

NGT7 Aug 2024Original Application No. 77/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NGT Southern Zone disposed of an application regarding noise pollution from a temple during festivals. A joint committee found the temple administration had complied with rules after a recommendation, leading to an amicable settlement between parties, on which the court relied to close the application.

What did the court decide?

The Original Application was closed as the matter was amicably settled between the parties following a joint committee inspection.

Jerome vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶2

Wednesday the 7th day of August, 2024.

¶3

Original Application No. 77 of 2024 (SZ) (Through Video Conference)

¶4

IN THE MATTER OF

¶5

Jerome Residing at No. 38, Jakeir Hussain Street, Karyanchavadi, chennai-600056.

¶6

...Applicant(s) Versus

¶7

1. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Represented by its Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, 76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.

¶8

The District Collector,
Chennai District,
Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai,
4th Floor, Singaraelar Maligai,
62 Rajaji Salai, Chennai- 600 001.
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): None
For Respondent(s): Mr. Sai Sathya Jith for R1.
Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R2.

¶9

Judgment Reserved on: 30^th July, 2024.

¶10

CORAM :

¶11

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

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana , Judicial Member

¶14

This Original Application was based on a letter petition transferred

¶15

from the Principal Bench of this Tribunal and numbered as O.A. No. 77 of 2024. The petitioner is a resident of Jakir Hussain Street, Karayanchavadi, Chennai.

¶16

¶17

The complaint of the petitioner is that the street in which he lives, there is a temple which is using big sized speakers in the month of Aadi. The songs are played with very high volume disturbing the applicant’s 1 yr old child and his parents who are senior citizens alleging noise pollution.

¶18

The Principal Bench had constituted a Joint Committee comprising of representatives of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the District Collector, Chennai to inspect and look into the grievance of the applicant and take appropriate remedial action by following the due process of law. Accordingly, the Joint Committee comprising of the representatives of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the District Collector, Chennai inspected the site on 07.06.2024. Though the complainant was not available at the time of inspection, complainant father Mr. Irudhyaraj Johsnon was present. The Joint Committee report reads as follows:

¶19

“2.2 A small idol of God Angala Parameshwari was kept inside the private property of room size 8x8 (approximately) and pooja was carried out regularly by Temple administration.

¶20

2.3 The daughter of the administrator of the Angala Parameshwari temple Tmt. Jaya w/o Shankar was also present during the joint inspection, who does not the pooja in the temple referred. There is no loud speaker in the temple during the joint inspection on 08.06.2024.

¶21

2.4 It was informed by the complainant’s father that during the Aadi festival-2023, in the said Angala Parameshwari Temple, Zakir Hussain Street, Karaiyanchavadi, Poonamallee, Tiruvallur, box speakers were used temporarily for 2-3 days with high volumes and his son has raised complaint regarding the same to grievance portal of Hon’ble NGT.

¶22

2.5 Tmt. Jaya w/o Shankar representing the temple administration has informed that the Aadi was celebrated with the approval of the police department and said that the box speakers were used during the days on which Aadi festival was celebrated last year.

¶23

2.6 The joint committee members have instructed the temple administration to comply with the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 that the sound level should not exceed 55dB during day time and 45 dB during night time as designated for the residential area.

¶24

2.7 The temple administration has agreed to the same and the complainant’s father has also informed that he has no issues after the said Aadi festival. The statement received from the complainant’s father is enclosed vide annexure-3.”

¶25

The Committee further recommended the temple administration to adhere to the rules and regulations mentioned in the Noise Pollution

¶26

¶27

(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 which was agreed to by the temple administration.

¶28

The report of the Joint Committee further states that though the application was entertained it does not come within the preview of Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Further it is stated that the temple celebrating a festival is not a scenario covered under Section 21 of the Air act. As per the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 a violator needs to be an industrial plant whereas in the instant case the complainant is aggrieved by the noise pollution caused by a temple which is not an industrial plant and which does not require any consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for conducting a festival.

¶29

The report further states that the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 defines the procedure for taking action in such cases before an “Authority” as per Rule 7 and the said “Authority” is defined in Rule 2(c) which is as follows:

¶30

"Authority means any authority or officer authorised by the Central Government, or as the case may be, the State Government in accordance with the laws in force and includes a District Magistrate, Police Commissioner, or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police designated for the maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise under any law for the time being in force.”

¶31

In a similar circumstances, this Tribunal in O.A. No. 65 of 2017-Mrs. Shanthakumari vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board & ors dated 23.03.2017 has held that if anybody is aggrieved by noise pollution it is open to them to follow the procedure as per the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and the authority defined under the said rules has the power to prohibit continuance of music, sound or noise as per the Rule 8 which reads as follows:

¶32

¶33

8. Power to prohibit etc. continuance of music sound or noise. (1) If the authority is satisfied from the report of an officer in-charge of a police station or other information received by him (including from the complainant) that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent annoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury or risk of annoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury to the public or to any person who dwell or occupy property on the vicinity, he may, by a written order issue such directions as he may consider necessary to any person for preventing, prohibiting, controlling or regulating:

¶34

(a) the incidence or continuance in or upon any premises of –

¶35

(i) any vocal or instrumental music,

¶36

(ii) sounds caused by playing, beating, clashing, blowing or use in any manner whatsoever of any instrument including loudspeakers, (public address systems, horn, construction equipment, appliance or apparatus) or contrivance which is capable of producing or reproducing sound, or

¶37

[(iii) sound caused by bursting of sound emitting fire crackers, or]

¶38

(b) the carrying on in or upon, any premises of any trade, avocation or operation or process resulting in or attended with noise.

¶39

(2) The authority empowered under sub-rule (1) may, either on its own motion, or on the application of any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-rule (1), either rescind, modify or alter any such order:

¶40

Provided that before any such application is disposed of, the said authority shall afford to the applicant (and to the original complainant, as the case may be)21 an opportunity of appearing before it either in person or by a person representing him and showing cause against the order and shall, if it rejects any such application either wholly or in part, record its reasons for such rejection.

¶41

Though as per the above Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 the applicant should have approached only the appropriate authority for redressal having taken the matter on file and as the matter was amicably settled between the parties by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, the Original Application is closed.

¶42

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

¶43

............................................................J.M.
(Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana)
.......................................E.M.
(Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati)

¶44

Internet – Yes/No All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

¶45

O.A. No.77/2024(SZ) 7th August, 2024. (AM)

¶46

¶47

Before the National Green
Tribunal
Southern Zone (Chennai)
O.A. No. 77 of 2024 (SZ)
Jerome
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
O.A No. 77/2024(SZ)
7th August, 2024. (AM)

¶48

Jerome v. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jerome v. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aravalli Bachao Citizens Movement vs Union of India

Amit Kishore and Ors. vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Jmt Arjun and Adarsh Enterprises vs Medicare Environmental Management Pvt. Ltd.

Restorehealth Medicare Private Limited vs Madhya Pradesh State Environment Assessment Authority (Mpseiaa) through the Member Secretary E-5 Paryavaran Parisar Bhawan Arera Colony Bhopal (M.P.)

Sudesh Gupta vs Samandar Patel Colonizer

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

Vivek vs the President

All India Anti Corruption Organization vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Jmt Arjun and Adarsh Enterprises vs Medicare Environmental Management Pvt. Ltd.

M Padmavathi vs the Honble Appellate Authority

J.Sathyan Praveen vs the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Tamil Nadu Seiaa Tn

Akula Satish vs State of Telangana

V Ramasubbu vs Member Secretary

T.M.Umashankar vs Union of India