Bombay High Court
Andheri Kala Vrind Dancing Academy ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 February, 2019
Bench: A.S.Oka, A.S.Gadkari
SKN 1/6 173.10-pil--.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 173 OF 2010
Dr.Mahesh Vijay Bedekar. ... Petitioner.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents.
ALONG WITH
ORIGINAL SIDE
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.85 OF 2007,
WRIT PETITION NO.89 OF 2004,
WRIT PETITION NO.357 OF 2003,
WRIT PETITION NO.1215 OF 2004,
WRIT PETITION NO.1503 OF 2005,
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.74 OF 2007,
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.83 OF 2010
PIL NO.173/2010:
None for Petitioners.
Mr.A.B. Vagyani, G.P. a/w MR. Y.S.Khochare, A.G.P. for R. Nos. 1(A) to 1(D)
Dr.Sadana Mahashabde for respondent No.1E.
Mr.R.S. Apte, Senior Advocate with Mr.F.A.Wasif i/b. Mr.N.R.Bubna for Thane
Municipal Corporation.
Mr.F.A.Wasif i/b. Mr.N.R.Bubna for Mira-Bhayander Municipal Corpn. and
Bhiwandi Municipal Corpn.
D.A. Dube for respondent No.3.
Mr. Prabhavatsan B. i/b. Nitin V. Gangal for respondent No.5.
Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat with Ms. Nazia Shaikh for respondent No. 8.
Mr. Pramod G. Kathane for respondent Nos. 9 & 17.
Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vinod Mahadik for respondent
No.11- Mumbai Municipal Corpn.
Mr.Ajinkya Udane i/b. Mr.Nikhil Chavan for respondent No.26.
Mr.A.S.Rao for respondent- Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation.
Mr.Sandip V. Marne for the respondent- Navi Mumbai Mun.Corpn.
Mr. Ravindra S. Panchudkar for respondent - Akola Municipal Corporation.
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2019 08:12:42 :::
SKN 2/6 173.10-pil--.doc
PIL NO.85/2007 AND OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS:
Mr.Shanay Shah with Ms.Aanchan Aggarwal with Divya Shetty i/b. Nankani &
Associates for the petitioners in PIL-85/2007 and WP-2053/2003.
Ms.Uma Palsule-Desai, AGP for the respondent- State in PIL-85/2007, WP-
357/2003, WP-2053/2003, WP-89/2004, WP-1215/2004, WP-1503/2005 and
PIL-74/2007.
Mr.L.T.Satelkar, AGP for the respondent-State in PIL-83/2010.
Mr.Sagar Patil for the respondent-MMC in PIL-85/2007.
Mr.N.R.Prajapati for respondent-UOI in PIL-85/07.
Mr.Musharaf Shaikh i/b. Ms.Kiran Bagalia for respondent No.4 in PIL-85/07.
Ms.Sadhna Mahashabde for respondent No.2 in PIL-85/07 and for respondent No.3
in PIL-74/07.
Mr.Rui Rodrigues for respondent No.1-UOI in WP-2053/03.
Mr.D.P.Singh with Mr.G.R.Sharma for respondent Nos.3 and 4 in PIL-83/10.
CORAM : A.S.OKA AND A.S.GADKARI, JJ.
DATE : 20th February 2019. P.C. :
Perused the order dated 13th December 2018. As per the directions given in paragraphs- 9 and 10 of the said order, the State Government was directed to file an affidavit dealing with action taken against those who have indulged in violation of Noise Pollution Rules in Mumbai during the Ganpati Festival of 2018 and Eid-E-Milad held on 21 st February 2018. There are two affidavits filed by the same Police Officer- Shri Manjunath Singe, IPS who is Deputy Commissioner of Police (Operations). The first affidavit dated 12th February 2019 deals with violation of said Rules during Ganpati Festival of 2018 and the second affidavit dated 13th February 2019 of the same officer deals with violation during Eid-E-Milad festival As noted in the earlier orders, these disposed of petitions are assigned to the Division Bench of this Court to which one ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2019 08:12:42 ::: SKN 3/6 173.10-pil--.doc of (A.S.Oka, J.) is a party for monitoring the compliance of the final judgment dated 10th, 11th, 12th and 16th August 2016. Perusal of the first affidavit shows that a chart is appended at Exhibit-1 which records that complaints were received in respect of breach of Noise Pollution Rules during the period from 23rd to 24th September 2018. Out of 22 cases set out in the said Exhibit-1, in case of 12 complaints, admittedly no action has been taken. In fact, as regards violation of the said Rules at Girgaum Chowpatty on 23rd September 2018, it is stated that the noise from the processions was shut down by the police but noise from the political party Mandals continued even after the midnight. The affidavit which is filed has not recorded any reasons as to why any action was not taken in these 12 cases. It is obvious that though the details were available with the Police about the political party Mandals which continued with noise pollution even after midnight, that data is withheld by the officer from the Court. Reliance is placed on reports submitted by the Police to the authorized officer of the Pollution Control Board in October 2018. Perusal of the said reports shows that in none of the said reports, the the authorized officer was called upon to lodge complaint under section 19 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the said Act of 1986"). Moreover, certain reports are submitted as late as on 25 th January 2019 to the authorized officer of the Pollution Control Board. Apart from the fact that material particulars are suppressed while filing an affidavit and action is not taken at least in 12 cases, an option was available to the Police either to file complaint after giving statutory notice under section 19 of the said Act of 1986 or to call the concerned person to file the complaint. That was not done. Surprisingly, in the affidavit of Shri Singe, apart from ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2019 08:12:42 ::: SKN 4/6 173.10-pil--.doc tendering apology for delay in filing affidavit, there is no explanation for inaction. The judgment of this Court is operative from August 2016. Special Leave Petition preferred by the State Government against the said judgment has been summarily dismissed by the Apex Court.
2. Now, we come to the second affidavit. Though it claims that no complaint was received from the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in PIL No.85/2007 has stated that a complaint was sent by email. The approach of the Police is crystal clear from Exhibit-1 which deals with a complaint made by the petitioner in the said PIL about violation Noise Pollution Rules during Eid-E-Milad where the noise level reached 105.3 decibels. The only response of the Police is that some one called the representative of the first petitioner who filed the complaint to discuss the complaint and she was told that necessary information about action taken will be available from the concerned police station. In this case, the letters were addressed to the Regional Officer of the Maharashtra Pollution Control board reporting breaches. In the report at Exhibit-2 dated 25th January 2019 addressed to the Regional Director of Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, the Police Officer has accepted that there was a major violence near Railway Colony of Khar (East) but apprehending that law and order situation will be created, an action of confiscation of equipments generating sound was not taken. In the letter dated 15th December 2018 addressed by the Assistant Police Inspector of Khar Police Station to the Sub-Regional Officer of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, a violation is simply reported without calling upon him to take action. The same is the case with reports ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2019 08:12:42 ::: SKN 5/6 173.10-pil--.doc of December 2018 and January 2019 submitted to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. Perusal of affidavit dated 13 th February 2019 shows that not only that the officer has gone to the extent of denying any complaint was received from the petitioner in PIL No.85/2007 by email but he has offered no explanation for inaction of the Police on the incidents reported during Eid-E-Milad in November 2018.
3. Though a final judgment of this Court was delivered about 2½ years ago, it appears from both the affidavits that the IPS Officer who has filed these affidavits has not even bothered to read the judgment and has not even made an attempt to give any explanation for complete inaction though repeated violation of the Noise Pollution Rules were pointed out to the Police. We would have been justified in issuing a notice of criminal or civil contempt to Shri Manjunath Singe on the basis of the statements made in both the affidavits. Before we do that, we direct the office of the Government Pleader to forward a copy of this order along with copies of these two affidavits filed by Shri Singe to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. We direct the Commissioner of Police to file his personal affidavit dealing with the issue and dealing with the action, if any, he proposes to take not only against Shri Manjunath Singe but also against the Police Officers who are responsible for not taking any action against the breach of Noise Pollution Rules. Such an affidavit shall be filed by the Commissioner of Police on or before 2 nd March 2019. The affidavit will also explain as to why the Police have expressed helplessness. This explanation must be given in the context of the fact that the role of the Police is to ensure that law and order is maintained.
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2019 08:12:42 :::SKN 6/6 173.10-pil--.doc
4. As this order is clearly and loudly dictated in the open Court, the leaned AGP will communicate the gist of the order to the Commissioner of Police and forward the copies of the affidavits filed by the said officer Shri Singe to the Commissioner of Police.
5. The Commissioner of Police will also look into the fact notwithstanding the fact that final judgment is delivered 2½ years back there is failure on the part of the Police in Mumbai to take action against violation of Noise Pollution Rules in terms of the directions issued by this Court. As stated earlier, the Police Commissioner will note that Special Leave Petition filed by the State Government against the said judgment has been dismissed.
6. Place the petition on 5th March 2019 at 3.00 p.m. under the caption of direction to consider the affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police as well as the affidavits filed by the Municipal Corporations.
(A.S.GADKARI, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2019 08:12:42 :::