Kerala High Court
Anto Paul Kattookaran vs The State Of Kerala on 21 October, 2022
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 29TH ASWINA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 24255 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
ANTO PAUL KATTOOKARAN
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O PAUL,KATTOOKARAN HOUSE,
OLLUR.P.O,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680306.
BY ADV SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
THRISSUR-680001.
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
THRISSUR-680001.
4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
THRISSUR-680001.
5 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
OLLUR POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR-680306.
6 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
OLLUR POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR-680306.
7 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
DISTRICT OFFICE OF KERALA STATION POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD,
THRISSUR-680005.
8 THE VICAR
ST.ANTONY'S FORANE CHURCH,
OLLUR.PO,THRISSUR-680306.
W.P.(C.) No. 24255/2016
2
R1 TO R6 BY SRI.JOBY JOSEPH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT
PLEADER
R7 BY SRI. NAVEEN T., SC
R8 BY ADVS.SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER
SRI.ROY JOSEPH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 21.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C.) No. 24255/2016
3
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order er direction commanding the respondents 2 to 7 more particularly respondents 5, 6 and 7 to totally abate the sound pollution being caused by the 8 th respondent and ensure a peaceful and comfortable atmosphere to the petitioner and other neigbouring residents during the early hours of the day, especially in the light of Ext-P7, which binds the parties, in the interest of justice.
ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 5 and 6 to take appropriate prosecution steps and such other preventive and remedial measures against the 8th respondent in the event of causing noise pollution from St. Antony's Forane church, Ollur by use of loud speaker between 5 AM to 6 AM on all days."
2. The grievance of the petitioner is in relation to the sound pollution caused by the eighth respondent i.e., St. Antony's Forane Church, Ollur, PO Thrissur, by engaging mikes over and above the limit fixed under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, constituted as per the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, W.P.(C.) No. 24255/2016 4 1986. In fact, the petitioner has approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C.) No. 7645/2014 since the statutory authorities before whom Ext.P4 complaint was filed did not take action. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P5 judgment issuing the following directions:-
"2. In this matter a counter affidavit has been filed by the 7th respondent. The 7th respondent has produced a report of the Pollution control Board along with affidavit as Ext.R7(e). It is stated in the report as follows:-
"As directed by the District Collector, inspection was conducted at St.Antony's Forane Church, Ollur and sound level was measured at 5:20AM on 10.03.2014. During inspection it was seen that 4 Nos. of loud speaker have been replaced with 4 Nos of box type speakers. The sound level measured as 47 dB (A) and the background noise was measured as 46dB(A) and hence there is an effect of IdB(A) due to the playing of devotional songs in Ollur St.Antony's Forance Church. As the background noise is 46dB(A) permissible limit of sound level may reach upto 56dB(A) permissible limit of sound level may reach upto 56dB(A). It is informed that playing of devotional songs between 5.15 AM to 5.45 AM may be continued with a sound level limit of 56dB(A)."
The petitioner submits that if any inspection is conducted they can find out the violation regarding noise. This Court cannot act on mere apprehension of the petitioner as the report clearly indicates that the noise level is within the parameters. However, the W.P.(C.) No. 24255/2016 5 Pollution Control Board is directed to conduct a surprise inspection at any day within two months and if it found that 7th respondent is using loudspeaker above the prescribed norms they are free to take action against the 7th respondent. The pollution Control shall ensure that the 7th respondent is strictly following the direction as per Annexure R7(e).
The writ petition is disposed of as above."
3. Now the grievance raised by the petitioner is that in spite of the direction issued by this Court, the Pollution Control Board has not taken any action so as to ventilate the grievances; and the sound pollution still continues, is the contention.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.G. Sreekumar Chelur, the learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. Joby Joseph, learned Counsel Sri. Julian Xavier for the eighth respondent, Sri. Naveen T., the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and perused the pleadings and material on record.
5. A long drawn deliberation in the matter is not required since the issue is guided by the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (for W.P.(C.) No. 24255/2016 6 short, the 'Rules, 2000'). The said Rule is constituted as per the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It was taking note of the increasing ambient noise levels in public places from various sources, inter-alia, industrial activity, construction activity, generator sets, loud speakers, public address systems, music systems, vehicular horns and other mechanical devices, are having harmful effects on human health and the psychological well being of the people, the Ministry of Environment and Forest decided to regulate and control noise producing and generating sources to maintain the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise. Rule 2(c) deals with the 'authority' who is competent to take action which reads thus:-
"(c) "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 the 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."
Rule 3 prescribes the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones. Rule 4 deals W.P.(C.) No. 24255/2016 7 with responsibility as to enforcement of noise pollution control measures which reads thus:-
"4. Responsibility as to enforcement of noise pollution control measures.-
(1) The noise levels in any area/zone shall not exceed the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise as specified in the Schedule.
(2) The authority shall be responsible for the enforcement of noise pollution control measures and the due compliance of the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise. (3) The respective State Pollution Control Boards or Pollution Control Committees in consultation with the Central Pollution Control Board shall collect, compile and publish technical and statistical data relating to noise pollution and measures devised for its effective prevention, control and abatement."
Rule 5 deals with restrictions on the use of loud speakers/public address system which reads thus:-
"5. Restrictions on the use of loud speakers/public address system.
(1) A loud speaker or a public address system shall not be used except after obtaining written permission from the authority.
(2) A loud speaker or a public address system shall not be used at night (between 10.00 P.M. to 6.00 a.m.) except in closed premises for communication within, e.g. auditoria, conference rooms, community halls and banquet halls. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), the State Government may subject to such terms and W.P.(C.) No. 24255/2016 8 conditions as are necessary to reduce noise pollution, permit the use of loudspeakers or public address systems during night hours (between 10.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight) on or during any cultural or religious occasion of a limited duration not exceeding fifteen days in all during a calendar year."
Rule 6 deals with consequences of any violation in silence zone or area which reads thus:-
"6. Consequences of any violation in silence zone/area.- Whoever, in any place covered under the silence zone/area commits any of the following offence, he shall be liable for penalty under the provisions of the Act:
(i) whoever, plays any music or uses any sound amplifiers,
(ii) whoever, beats a drum or tom-tom or blows a horn either musical or pressure, or trumpet or beats or sounds any instrument, or
(iii) whoever, exhibits any mimetic, musical or other performances of a nature to attract crowds."
Rule 7 deals with complaints to be made to the authority which reads thus:-
"7. Complaints to be made to the authority.- (1) A person may, if the noise level exceeds the ambient noise standards by 10 dB(A) or more given in the corresponding columns against any area/zone, make a complaint to the authority.
(2) The authority shall act on the complaint and take action against the violator in accordance with the W.P.(C.) No. 24255/2016 9 provisions of these rules and any other law in force." Rule 8 deals with power to prohibit with respect to continuance of music sound or noise which reads thus:-
"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:
(a) the incidence or continuance in or upon any premises of - (i) any vocal or instrumental music,
(ii) sounds caused by playing, beating, clashing, blowing or use in any manner whatsoever of any instrument including loudspeakers, public address systems, appliance or apparatus or contrivance which is capable of producing or re-producing sound, or
(b) the carrying on in or upon, any premises of any trade, avocation or operation or process resulting in or attended with noise.
(2) The authority empowered under sub-rule (1) may, W.P.(C.) No. 24255/2016 10 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:
Provided that before any such application is disposed of, the said authority shall afford to the applicant and to the original complainant 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."
6. Analysis of the above said provisions shows that there are clear cut and mandatory procedure prescribed under the Rules, 2000 in order to curb the noise pollution under various circumstances. The authority to deal with such application is also statutorily prescribed. In my considered opinion, when an application is submitted before the appropriate statutory authority to ventilate the grievance consequent to the noise pollution, the said authority is duty bound to take appropriate action, then and there itself so as to implement the provisions of Rules 2000 in letter and spirit. The case projected by the petitioner in this writ petition is that in spite of earnest efforts made by the petitioner, no action was taken by the W.P.(C.) No. 24255/2016 11 authorities.
7. In that view of the matter, I think it is only appropriate that the writ petition is disposed of especially due to the fact that it was pending before this Court for the past six years without securing any interim orders. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to file suitable application before the statutory authority if the, eight respondent violates the provisions of the Rules, 2000 and if any such application is filed, I have no reason to think that the said authority will not consider the same, in accordance with law as discussed above, at the earliest possible time.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE DCS/21.10.2022 W.P.(C.) No. 24255/2016 12 APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED DATED 8.2.2014 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,OLLUR DATED 17.2.2014 EXHIBIT P3 THE INFORMATION SO FURNISHED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED ON 10.3.2014 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)7645 OF 2014 DATED 12.11.2015 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN WP(C)7645 OF 2014 DATED 27.11.2014 BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT HEREIN EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.3.2016.