Dismissed

M. Ramidevi, v. The Municipal Corporation of Nellore

Telangana HC15 Mar 2012WP/26753/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged noise pollution from a Jain temple using electric drums, citing levels exceeding Schedule III standards. The court accepted an undertaking from the temple to reduce noise during Harathi and poojas, noted the acceptance of the undertaking by the SP, and disposed of the petition without orders.

What did the court decide?

Upholding the undertaking by Sri Phoolchand to reduce noise, the petition was disposed of without costs.

M. Ramidevi, Vs The Municipal Corporation of… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.26753 OF 2009

¶3

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶4

The petitioners are from Nellore. They are aggrieved by the noise pollution caused by the electrically operated huge drums, employed by Sri Muniswarat Swamy Bhairav Jain Mandir Sangh in their temple. The petitioners allege that these drums are used by the Managers of the Jain Mandir from early morning till night causing annoyance and nuisance to the residents. The petitioners gave a complaint to the fourth respondent, without much benefit. They, therefore, filed the instant Writ Petition for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to discharge their statutory obligations under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000 (the Rules), to prevent the fourth respondent from causing noise pollution.

¶5

The Superintendent of Police, SPSR Nellore District, filed the counter affidavit admitting about the representation dated 21.2.2009 made by the petitioners and the allegations therein are narrated. It is further stated that the police officers of I-Town P.S., Nellore, on the instructions of the answering respondent, summoned Sri Phoolchand, S/o.Bhoormaiji, who gave an undertaking that he will not cause any nuisance to the residents of the locality.

¶6

This matter came before us on 01.3.2012. We directed the counsel for the fourth respondent to file undertaking of Sri Phoolchand in this regard. Today, an undertaking by way of an affidavit is filed, which accompanied WPMP.No.8019 of 2012 wherein an undertaking is given to reduce the noise pollution at the

¶7

time of Harathi and also performing poojas on all the days.

¶8

The Environmental Engineer, Nellore, filed report by way of communication addressed to the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer (Legal), A.P. Pollution Control Board, Hyderabad, making reference to the Rules. It is stated that as the Superintendent of Police is the prescribed authority to implement the Rules; the petition received was sent to the Superintendent of Police. Noise monitoring was conducted during morning pooja at 7.30 am on 24.12.2009 and it was found that there was higher value of noise level near the petitioners’ house. The details furnished would show that the noise levels recorded at the petitioners’ house ranged from 56 to 80 decibels (dB). The same is the case when the pooja was performed and the noise levels ranged from 76 to 82 dB, average noise levels ranged at 79 dB, and within the Jain Mandir, the noise levels when the pooja was performed, ranged from 82 to 98 dB.

¶9

These levels are certainly above the National Ambient Air Quality standards prescribed under Schedule III of the Rules. Therefore, the allegations made by the petitioners stand proved by the report submitted by the Environmental Engineer. The Superintendent of Police has already initiated action and necessary action shall be taken in accordance with the Rules, if necessary by passing an order for abatement of noise pollution caused by the fourth respondent-temple. If necessary, it is even open to the Superintendent of Police to seize the drums which are used for creating such huge level of sound pollution. The undertaking given by Sri Phoolchand is taken on record.

¶10

The Writ Petition subject to the above observations shall stand disposed of, without any order as to costs. WPMP.Nos.34849 of 2009 and 8019 of 2012 shall stand disposed

¶11

of.

¶12

_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶13

_________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶14

15^th March 2012 RRB

M. Ramidevi, v. The Municipal Corporation of Nellore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Ramidevi, v. The Municipal Corporation of Nellore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State Bank of India., rep.by its Branch Manager Vs Ap State consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Aware Micro Finances Society, 40/447/25a 1st floor Vs The State Bank of India., rep.by its Authorized officer

Remella Chitti Babu Vs The Collector and District Magistrate

Mandapalli Papa Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Singampalli Srinivas Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Md. Nizamuddin, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh