Kerala High Court
Jobin Sebastian vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board on 2 December, 2020
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 11TH
AGRAHAYANA, 1942
W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020(F)
PETITIONER:
JOBIN SEBASTIAN,
MANAGING PARTNER, PEE JAY TREADS,
S/O. SEBASTIAN JOSEPH, AGED 37 AGES,
PANAMTHANATHU HOUSE, ULLANDU P.O., ALAMATTOM,
PALA-686 651
BY ADVS.
SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER
SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
DISTRICT OFFICE, SRINIVASA IYER ROAD,
KOTTAYAM-686 001, REPRESENTED BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
2 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT
OFFICE, SRINIVASA IYER ROAD, KOTTYAM-686 001
3 BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE PANCHAYAT,
BHRANANGANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 578,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
4 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
PALA.P.O. KOTTAYAM-686 575
5 TOWN PLANNING OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNER, KOTTAYAM-686 002
6 JOSEPH THOMAS,
S/O.LATE THOMAS, KAPPIL HOUSE, PRAVITHANAM,
ANTHIKKAD P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 651
BY SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD,
BY ADV. SRI.J.PRAKASH C.VADAKKAN
R6 BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL
BY ADV.SMT.AMMINI KUTTY, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 02.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is the Managing Partner of M/s.Pee Jay Treads, a partnership firm conducting tyre retreading unit on the strength of Ext.P4 consent to operate granted by the 1 st respondent Kerala State Pollution Control Board, which is valid upto 30.06.2021, and Ext.P6 licence dated 09.12.2019 issued by the Bharananganam Grama Panchayat, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 communication dated 16.11.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent Environmental Engineer of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, whereby the petitioner was informed that, in the inspection conducted by the officers of the Pollution Control Board, pursuant to a letter of the Secretary of Bharananganam Grama Panchayat, it was found that the functioning of the petitioner's unit during night time is causing difficulty to the people in the locality. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to stop the functioning of the unit during night time (from 6.00 pm to 6.00 am) and report the said fact to the office of the Pollution Control Board. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that his unit is located in industrial zone as per the Noise Pollution (Regulation W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 3 and Control) Rules, 2000 and Ext.P16 Government notification, i.e., G.O.(P)No.64/2002/LSGD dated 20.04.2002 and as such, the petitioner can function his unit within the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise specified for industrial area in the Schedule to the said Rules; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner's unit since the ambient air quality standards from that unit is within the limits specified for industrial area in the Schedule attached to the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
2. On 12.05.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board took notice for respondents 1 and 2. Notice by speed post was ordered to the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 4 and 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to serve a copy of this writ petition to the learned counsel, who filed W.P.(C)No.9687 of 2020, a writ petition filed by the 6 th respondent herein, seeking police protection against the petitioner herein. By the order dated 12.05.2020, this Court permitted the petitioner to W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 4 operate his tyre retreading unit from 9.00 am to 7.00 pm. The official respondents were directed to ensure that the unit is not operated at any time other than the time permitted by this Court.
3. On 22.06.2020, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2020, seeking an order to modify the interim order dated 12.05.2020 and permit him to operate the tyre retreading unit from 5.00 am to 9.00 pm. On that interlocutory application, this Court passed an order dated 17.08.2020. Paragraph 4 of that order reads thus;
"4. It is not for this Court to examine as to what condition should be imposed on the operation of the Unit of the petitioner. This is something that should be examined by the Pollution Control Board. It is pointed out that there is already an order restricting the operation of the Unit from 6 am to 6 pm, by the Pollution Control Board, which order is under challenge in this writ petition. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent namely, the 'Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, District Office, Srinivas Iyer Road, Kottayam-686 001', to cause an inspection of the Unit of the petitioner and to determine the conditions upon which the Unit should be permitted to operate, taking into account the grievances raised by the 6th respondent also. It will be appropriate that the 2nd respondent considers whether W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 5 there is any sound pollution affecting the life of the nearby residents and, if he finds there is a possibility of sound pollution, he will also determine the measures to be adopted by the Unit for ensuring that the operation of the Unit does not cause any disturbance to the nearby residents. The 2nd respondent shall before taking a final decision in the matter, issue notice to the petitioner as well as the 6th respondent and offer an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to the 6 th respondent. The needful shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The report prepared by the 2nd respondent shall be placed before this Court for further consideration. In the meanwhile, the conditions imposed through order dated 12.05.2020 will continue to operate."
4. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 17.08.2020, the 2nd respondent Environmental Engineer has filed a report dated 09.10.2020. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of that report read thus;
"4. The unit was found functioning during the time of inspection. The complainant's house is found located at a distance of 63m from the referred unit. A heavy duty tyre charger of 3.5HP, manual buffing machine of 5HP, screw compressor of 15HP, tyre buffing machine of 4.5HP, electric tyre curing chamber of 15HP, electric mould of 13HP, tread builder of 3.5HP and a generator of 62KVA were seen installed in the unit. The total capacity of the machinery installed in the unit is found to W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 6 be 59.5 HP. Earlier due to the complaint raised by the complainant, necessary instructions were given to the owner not to operate the unit during night hours. As per the instruction from this office he has replaced the piston compressor of 10HP with a screw compressor of 15HP to reduce the sound pollution. He has also provided acoustic enclosures to the DG set installed in the unit.
5. Sound level monitoring has also been conducted on 09.09.2020. The details of the ambient sound level in decibel dB(A) and the sound level obtained while the unit is in operation are enclosed. True copy of the sound level monitoring report is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-R2(a). On analysing the report, the sound level while the unit is in operation and the ambient sound level are found to be more or less same. The ambient sound level near the retreading unit and near to the complainants house are found to be 62 dB(A) and 57 dB(A) respectively. The higher ambient sound level noticed appears to be due to the vehicular traffic on the public road, since the referred unit is located at a distance of 17m from the public road and complainants house is at a distance of 22.40m. The sound level is found to be 53 dB(A) outside the complainant's house while the unit is in operation and is well within the limits as per the standards (i.e., 55 dB(A)). From the above it is evident that the functioning of the unit during day time will not create any noise pollution to the petitioner.
6. However, necessary instructions were given to the owner of the unit to enclose the building with sound proofing materials along the side complainant's residence to reduce the sound level further while W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 7 conducting tyre retreading activities. True copy of the direction issued to the unit as per communication dated 09.09.2020 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R-2(b). A trial run for a period of 3 days need to be conducted for verifying the sound level during night time and to determine whether the unit can be given permission for its operation during night time, subject o the orders pass by this Hon'ble Court."
5. On 09.09.2020, the 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, appearing for respondents 1 and 2; the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat; the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 4 and 5; and also the learned counsel for the 6th respondent.
7. Clause (b) of Rule 2 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (for brevity, 'the Rules') define 'area/zone' to mean all areas which fall in either of the four categories given in the Schedule annexed to the Rules. Clause (j) of Rule 2 define 'night time' to mean the period between 10.00 pm and 6.00 am. Rule 3 of the Rules deals with ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 8 areas/zones. Rule 3 reads thus;
"3. Ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones.- (1) The ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones shall be such as specified in the Schedule Annexed to these rules.
(2) The State Government shall categorise the area into industrial, commercial, residential or silence areas/zones for the purpose of implementation of noise standards for different areas.
(3) The State Government shall take measures for abatement of noise including the noise emanating from vehicular movements blowing of horns, bursting of sound emitting fire crackers, use of loud speakers or public address system and sound producing instruments and ensure that the existing noise levels do not exceed the ambient air quality standards specified under these rules.
(4) All development authorities, local bodies and other concerned authorities while planning development activity or carrying out functions relating to town and country planning shall take into consideration all aspects of noise pollution as a parameter of quality of life to avoid noise menace and to achieve the objective of maintaining the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise.
(5) An area comprising not less than 100 metres around hospital educational institutions and courts may be declared [by the State Government] as silence area/zone for the purpose of these rules.W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 9
Provided that, an area shall not fall under silence area or zone category, unless notified by the State Government in accordance with sub-rule (2)."
8. Rule 4 of the Rules, deals with responsibility as to enforcement of noise pollution control measures. Rule 4 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."
9. Rule 7 of the Rules deals with complaints to be made to the authority. Rule 7 reads thus;
"7. Complaints to be made to the authority.- (1) A person may, if the noise level exceeds the ambient noise standards by 10dB (A) or more given in the corresponding columns against any area/zone, [or if there is a violation of any provision of these rules regarding restrictions imposed during night time], make W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 10 a complaint to the authority.
(2) The authority shall act on the complaint and take action against the violator in accordance with the provisions of these rules and any other law in force."
10. The Schedule to the Rules deals with ambient air quality standards in respect of noise. The Schedule to the Rules, reads thus;
"SCHEDULE [See: Rule 3(1) and 4(1)] Ambient Air Quality Standards in Respect of Noise Area Code Category of Area Zone Limits in Db (a) Leq* Day Time Night Time (A) Industrial area 75 70 (B) Commercial area 65 55 (C) Residential area 55 45 (D) Silence Zone 50 40 Note:- 1. Day time shall mean from 6.00 am to 10.00 pm
2. Night time shall mean from 10.00 pm to 6.00 am.
3. Mixed categories of areas may be declared as one of the four above mentioned categories by the competent authority.
4. Mixed categories of areas may be declared as one of the four above categories by the competent authority.
*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 'decibel' is a unit in which noise is measured. 'A', in dB(A) Leq, denotes the frequency weighting in the measurement of noise and corresponds to frequency response characteristics of the human ear. W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 11 Leq: It is an energy mean of the noise level, over a specified period."
11. In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules, the State Government issued Ext.P16 notification, i.e., G.O.(P)No.64/02/LSGD dated 20.04.2002 classifying the areas as contemplated under the said sub-rule. Para I of the said notification deals with areas covered under Town Planning Schemes and Para II deals with areas not covered under Town Planning Schemes. For the purpose of implementation of the provisions under the Rules, the areas are classified as industrial area, commercial area, residential area and silence zone.
12. During the course of arguments, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the tyre retreading unit run by the petitioner situates in an industrial area. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 6 th respondent would contend that, the said unit situates in residential area.
13. The question as to whether the petitioner's tyre retreading unit situates in an industrial area or residential area has relevance, since that unit has to comply with the ambient air quality standards specified in the Schedule of the Rules for W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 12 'day time' and 'night time', depending upon the area zone, in terms of the classification in Ext.P16 notification dated 20.04.2002 issued in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules. As per Note 1 of the Schedule, 'day time' shall mean from 6.00 am to 10.00 pm and as per Note 2, 'night time shall mean from 10.00 pm to 6.00 am.
14. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 17.08.2020, the 2nd respondent Environmental Engineer has filed a report, wherein it is stated that the functioning of the unit during day time will not create noise pollution to the petitioner. However, necessary instructions vide Annexure- R2(b) communication dated 09.09.2020 have been given to the petitioner to enclose the building with sound proofing materials, along the side of the 6 th respondent's residence, to reduce the sound level further, while conducting tyre retreading activity. In the said report, it has also been stated that a trial run for three days has to be conducted for verifying the sound level at the time of its operation, during night time.
15. In M. Mahshook Rahman v. City Police Commissioner, Vazhuthacuad and others [2020 (5) KHC W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 13 363], this Court held that the right to live in an atmosphere free from noise pollution is a fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and noise pollution beyond permissible limits is an inroad into that right. The fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on any occupation, trade or business is not absolute. Any attempt to create noise by amplifying the sound with the help of hi-fi amplifier systems and loudspeakers or even the playing of high sound instruments like drums, tom toms, trumpets, bugles and the like which create noise beyond tolerable limits, thereby compulsorily exposing other unwilling persons to hear noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels, will amount to violation of their right to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution- free life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the said decision read thus;
"12. In Forum, Prevention of Environmental and Sound Pollution v. Union of India [(2005) 5 SCC 733] the Apex Court noticed that those who make noise often take shelter behind Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India pleading freedom of speech and right to expression. Undoubtedly, the freedom of speech and right to expression are fundamental rights but the rights are not absolute. Nobody can claim a fundamental right to create noise by amplifying the sound of his W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 14 speech with the help of loudspeakers. While one has a right to speech, others have a right to listen or decline to listen. Nobody can be compelled to listen and nobody can claim that he has a right to make his voice trespass into the ears or mind of others. Nobody can indulge in aural aggression. If anyone increases his volume of speech and that too with the assistance of artificial devices so as to compulsorily expose unwilling persons to hear a noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels, then the person speaking is violating the right of others to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution-free life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 19(1)(a) cannot be pressed into service for defeating the fundamental right guaranteed by Article
21.
13. In Forum, Prevention of Environmental and Sound Pollution the Apex Court, in the context of noise pollution in public place vis-a-vis right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, observed that Indian judicial opinion has been uniform in recognising the right to live in freedom from noise pollution as a fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, and noise pollution beyond permissible limits as an inroad into that right. People indulge in making noise beyond tolerable limits and create a health hazard unmindful of consequences which are likely to befall not only others but also themselves who create noise. Not only the use of loudspeakers and playing of hi-fi amplifier systems has to be regulated, even the playing of high sound instruments like drums, tom-toms, trumpets, bugles and the like which create noise beyond W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 15 tolerable limits need to be regulated. The law enforcing agencies must be equipped with necessary instruments and facilities out of which sound level meters conforming to the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) code are a bare necessity.
14. The right to live in an atmosphere free from noise pollution is a fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and noise pollution beyond permissible limits is an inroad into that right. The fundamental right guaranteed to the 3rd respondent under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on any occupation, trade or business is not absolute. Any attempt by the 3rd respondent to create noise by amplifying the sound with the help of hi-fi amplifier systems and loudspeakers in his convention centre or even the playing of high sound instruments like drums, tom toms, trumpets, bugles and the like which create noise beyond tolerable limits, thereby compulsorily exposing the petitioner and other unwilling persons to hear noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels, will amount to violation of their right to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution-free life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
16. In Paragon Steels Private Limited and others v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (4) KLT 697] this Court noticed that, as per Section 7 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 no person carrying on any industry, operation or process shall discharge or emit or permit to be discharged or emitted any environmental pollutant in excess of such W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 16 standards as may be prescribed. The Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 6 and Section 25 of the said Act has framed Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. The said Rules prescribe different ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for 'day time' and 'night time' for different areas/zones. In the said decision, this Court held that, when the duly framed statutory rules prescribe different air quality standards for 'day time' and 'night time', necessarily the Pollution Control Board, which is authorised to enforce the pollution control norms, has authority to direct that an industry not satisfying the air quality standards prescribed for the 'night time', shall not function during 'night time'.
17. In the instant case, as can be seen from the report filed by the 2nd respondent Environmental Engineer, in the tyre retreading unit, the petitioner is using tyre changer, manual buffing machine, screw compressor, tyre buffing machine, etc. By Annexure R2(b) communication of the 2 nd respondent Environmental Engineer, the petitioner was directed to enclose the building with sound proofing materials, along the side of the 6th respondent's residence, to reduce sound level further while conducting retreading activity.
W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 17
18. The learned counsel for the 6 th respondent would submit that, before conducting a trial run for three days, as stated in paragraph 6 of the report filed by the 2 nd respondent Environmental Engineer, the said respondent has to ensure that the petitioner has already complied with the direction contained in Annexure R2(b).
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, though such a direction was not necessary, since the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise in the petitioner's tyre retreading unit during 'day time' is within the permissible limits in the Schedule of the Rules, as stated in Para 5 of the report of the 2 nd respondent, the petitioner has already covered the building, along the side of the 6 th respondent's residence, in order to reduce the sound level further.
20. The learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board would submit that, in order to find out whether the petitioner's tyre retreading unit can be granted permission to function during 'night time', a trial run for three days is required. Before trial run, the 2 nd respondent Environmental Engineer shall conduct a preliminary inspection in the unit, in W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 18 order to ensure that the petitioner has already complied with the direction contained in Annexure R2(b).
21. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner and the 6th respondent, with the following directions;
(i) The 2nd respondent Environmental Engineer shall conduct an inspection in the petitioner's tyre retreading unit on 09.12.2020 at 11.00 am, in order to verify whether the petitioner has already complied with the direction contained in Annexure R2(b) by enclosing the building with sound proofing materials, along the side of the 6th respondent's residence, in order to reduce the sound level further. The petitioner and the 6th respondent or his authorised representative shall be personally present in the unit, at the time of inspection.
(ii) After such preliminary inspection, the 2nd respondent Environmental Engineer shall permit trial run in the petitioner's tyre retreading unit, for a period of three days, in order to find out whether the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise during 'day time' (from 6.00 am to 10.00 pm) and 'night time' (from 10.00 pm to 6.00 am) is within the permissible limits in the Schedule of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, read with Ext.P16 Government notification dated 20.04.2002 issued in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules.
(iii) After the trial run, the report of the 2 nd respondent W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 19 Environmental Engineer on the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise in the petitioner's tyre retreading unit shall be furnished to the petitioner and the 6th respondent, within a period of three days, and thereafter, the 2nd respondent shall conduct a personal hearing, within a further period of one week, and take an appropriate decision on the matter, after adverting to the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner and the 6th respondent. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner and the 6 th respondent, forthwith.
(iv) Till such time, the interim order of this Court dated 12.05.2020 shall continue to be in force.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE yd W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 20 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REGISTRATION OF FIRMS IN WHICH PEE JAY TREADS HAS BEEN REGISTERED WITH NO.1050/2015 DTD 20.03.2015 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/956/2015/D.DIS DTD 15.07.2015 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DTD 27.07.2015 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DTD 05.10.2015 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE D AND O LICENSE BEARING NO.A2-2301/16 DTD 19.04.2016 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTENDED D AND O LICENSE BEARING NO.B1/5051/221/2019 DTD 09.12.2019 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH NO.1, SHOWING AERIAL DISTANCE BETWEEN PETITIONERS UNIT TO 6TH RESPONDENTS PROPERTY EXHIBIT P7A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH NO.2, SHOWING AERIAL DISTANCE BETWEEN PETITIONERS UNIT TO 6TH RESPONDENTS PROPERTY EXHIBIT P7B TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH NO.3, SHOWING AERIAL DISTANCE BETWEEN PETITIONERS UNIT TO 6TH RESPONDENTS PROPERTY EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.PCB/KTO/CO/3585/2011 DTD 16.11.2016 W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 21 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.B3-3161/17 DTD 23.06.2017 IS ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF PANCHAYAT 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE AMBIENT SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENT CHECKED AND ISSUED BY A PRIVATE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT DTD 14.11.2017 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 18.04.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD 23.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 18.3.2020 SENT BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH REGISTERED POST ON 15.04.2020 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT SHOWING DELIVERY OF EXT.P13 ON 20.04.2020 EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ON 12.03.2020 EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO.64/2002 DTD 20.04.2002 PUBLISHED VIDE SRO NO.280/2020 EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE MINISRY OF HOME AFFAIRS BEARING NO.40-
3/2020-DM-1(A) DATED 30.05.2020.
2ND RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SOUND LEVEL MONITORING REPORT DATED 09.09.2020.
ANNEXURE R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.PCB/KTM/CO/3585/2011 DATED 09.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE PCB W.P.(C)No.9857 OF 2020 22 6TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R6(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/11/2016 ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER ATTACHED TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6(b): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/01/2017 ISSUED BY HE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL TALUK.
EXHIBIT R6(c): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/08/2017 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6(d): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6(e): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/11/2018 IN S.T.C.NO.1557/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PALA.
EXHIBIT R6(f): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/04/2018 IN S.T.C.NO.7550/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PALA.
EXHIBIT R6(g): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07/02/2020 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL.
EXHIBIT R6(h): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28/07/2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALA.
EXHIBIT R6(i): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 01/11/2016 GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE