National Green Tribunal
Dileep B. Nevatia vs The Motor Vehicle Department on 25 June, 2020
Item No. 02
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(Through Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 117/2017 (WZ)
Dileep B. Nevatia Applicant(s)
Versus
The Motor Vehicle Department & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 25.06.2020
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SIDDHANTA DAS, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Dileep B. Nevatia, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vilas A Jadhav, Advocate for R-2, MPCB
ORDER
1. The applicant has filed this application against the violation of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, caused due to complete neglect and apathy on part of the Respondents in failing to comply with strict compliance of Rule (115) sub-rule (7) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and thereby failing to ensure that only those vehicles that carry valid "Pollution under control" (PUC) certificate issued by the authorized agency are permitted to ply in the State of Maharashtra and thereby adversely affecting the health and lives of millions of people all over the State of Maharashtra.
2. The applicant has prayed as follows:
"i) Urgently adopt and implement and in a time bound manner of a maximum of one year, or any such period this Hon'ble Tribunal 1 deems fit and proper, the recommendations made by the Environment Pollution (Prevention & Control) Authority for the National Capital Region by its Final Report on functioning of PUC Centres in Delhi-NCR.
ii) Limit the number of PUC centres, upgrade them and bring them under strong supervision and quality control.
iii) to v) xxx xxx xxx
vi) Make quality audit of centres and calibration quarterly.
vii) Phase in big centralized emissions testing centres capable of conducting automatic and upgraded tests for commercial vehicles on a priority basis.
viii) Upgrade Testing Centres for high level of automatic emissions testing so that operators and vehicle drivers do not come in contact to influence the test results and credible and upgraded tests are conducted.
ix) Introduce well equipped mobile test centres and a programme to check visibly polluting vehicles."
3. The applicant has also submitted that "8.That the EPCA submitted its report no. 23 (July 2006) on audit of PUC centres and networking centres in Delhi, whereby making the following recommendations:-
1. The first third party audit of PUC centres has been effective in identifying operational problems in the PUC centres for corrective action. In view of this EPCA recommends that similar third party audits should be conducted every 6 months and the findings should be submitted to EPCA.
2. Vigilance must be stepped up against fraud in the PUC by carrying out surprise checks. If any fraud is detected then in addition to the punitive action to be initiated by the transport department of Delhi the concerned oil companies should also be made responsible and liable for taking action against the petrol pump dealer/owner who obtains the license for operating the PUC stations. The oil companies must be directed to proceed against the petrol pump dealer/owner (by suspending supplies of petroleum products and imposing strict fine), and ensure that publicity is given to this action to serve as a deterrent for other.
3. To improve compliance and prevent fraudulent practices in PUC centres, a networking system be created to link all the PUC centres through a central server to a centralized databank of PUC test results and the database of vehicle registration.
This will be used for remote auditing and tracking compliance. The networking should become operational and data auditing must begin by January 2007. Delhi government must ensure that this deadline is not violated.
2
10. That despite the CMVR Rules being notified in the year 1989 and despite directions given in the year 2005 by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 1 to audit the PUC centres and network the same, over the next twelve years the Respondent No. 1 has only slept over these crucial issues of controlling automobile pollution, which is adversely affecting the healthy and lives of millions of persons in the State of Maharashtra, since automobile pollution is the major cause of pollution in the urban and semi-urban areas.
11. That even as on today, the few thousand authorised PUC centres operating in Maharashtra are neither networked nor undergoing third party audits, as a result whereof a majority of the vehicles plying in the State do not regularly undergo PUC checks, as there is no procedure adopted by the Respondents to track these vehicles, despite there being an active database of vehicles in Maharashtra available with Respondent No. 1 and its offices throughout the State. This has resulted in utter manipulation and malpractices in issuance of PUC certificates, some of the common ones being:
(a) Most of the vehicles do not undergo PUC checks and are outside the net of pollution control. As on 31.10.2016 there were around 2.91 crores vehicles registered in Maharashtra and this required around 5.82 crores PUC checks to be conducted every year, based on a test every six months. No one, including the Respondent No. 1, has any idea or information as to how many PUC checks are actually carried out every year by around 1,500 approved PUC centres in the State or how many vehicles are actually checked.
(b) False PUC certificates issued, without the vehicle actually visiting the PUC centre. This forms the bulk of the actual PUC certificates issued.
False PUC certificates issued by unauthorised PUC centres."
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has decided the similar matter in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985 dated 24.08.2018 which is as follows:
"3. In 2003, the Government of India announced the National Auto Policy based on the recommendations of the Mashelkar Committee constituted in 2001. BS-IV compliant vehicles were made compulsory for four wheelers in different parts of the country on different dates starting from 01.04.2005, from which date registration of only BS-IV compliant vehicles were permitted in the metropolises of Delhi, Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Mumbai, Pune and Kolkata. Thereafter, it was made compulsory to have BS-IV compliant vehicles in some other cities from 01.04.2010. More cities were added on 21.05.2010 and on 14.07.2015. Finally, by amendment dated 19.08.2015 it was mandated that BS-IV norms would come into force throughout the country w.e.f. 01.04.2017.3
4. As far as two and three wheelers are concerned, they were made subject to BS-III norms on and with effect from 01.04.2010 by insertion of sub-rule 16 in Rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. With effect from 04.07.2014, it was mandated that on and from 01.04.2016 all two wheeler vehicles will comply with BS-IV emission norms and all existing models will shift to BS-IV emission norms from 01.04.2017. Similarly, Rule 17 was inserted in Rule 115 of the Rules on 12.06.2015 in respect of three wheelers wherein BS-IV standard would be applicable to new models on or after 01.04.2016. Resultantly, only those vehicles which were BS-IV compliant would be sold after 01.04.2017.
10. On the other hand, Ms. Aparajita Singh, learned amicus curiae, has made a passionate plea that no non-BS-VI compliant vehicle should be permitted to be sold in the entire country after 01.04.2020. She has drawn our attention to the Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee (for short 'the Committee') dated 07.08.2018. This Report mainly deals with National Capital Region (NCR) of Delhi but there are some references to the entire country. Some of the observations made by the Committee need to be considered and taken note of. The Committee in Para 5.15 notes that the problem of air pollution is affecting all human beings and any leniency on the part of the Government in tackling it will have a cascading effect on the health of the citizens. These observations have been made with specific reference to vehicular pollution and the need to ensure compliance of BS-VI norms with effect from 0.1.04.2020. There can be no two views that air pollution is hazardous to health. We may, also take note of certain observations of the Report of the Committee which show that one out of three children in Delhi suffers from respiratory problems. This is almost twice as high as compared to the city of Kolkata or rural areas. We may note that the World Health Organization's (WHO) database of more than 4,300 cities showed Indian cities of Gwalior, Allahabad, Raipur, Delhi, Ludhiana, Khanna, Varanasi and Patna as being among the most polluted in the world1. Our attention has been drawn to various other documents which clearly show the deleterious effects of pollution on health. The hazards of pollution and its ill effect on the health of the citizens especially children are not limited to the city of Delhi or the NCR of Delhi but affect all the citizens of the country.
13. With regard to trucks and buses, from a news item published in the Financial Express dated 06.07.2018, it is apparent that Eicher is already manufacturing trucks and buses which are not only BS-VI compliant but BS-VI CNG compliant. Another manufacturer of heavy vehicles i.e. Ashok Leyland had, in August, 2018 through its subsidiary Optare obtained an order to manufacture the world's first, electric double decker buses. The technology needed to manufacture such electric buses is 1 "World's Most Polluted Cities", World Economic Forum, 03.05.2018 4 much more advanced and difficult as compared to the technological changes required to manufacture petrol and diesel vehicles which are BS-VI compliant. Similarly, TVS Motors on 07.08.2018 has issued a press note that it will be manufacturing BS-VI compliant vehicles much ahead of the deadline of 2020. Many members of SIAM in the Auto Expo held in February, 2018 have exhibited vehicles which are technologically much more advanced than BS-VI compliant vehicles. These manufacturers have not only asserted that they can manufacture electric vehicles but also asserted that they are developing hydrogen cell fuel vehicles along with hybrid, electric and CNG vehicles.
14. We have mentioned these facts only to highlight that some of the manufacturers are not willing to comply with the 31.03.2020 deadline not because they do not have the technology but because the use of technology will lead to increase in the cost of the vehicles which may lead to reduction in sales of the vehicles and ultimately their profit. There can be no compromise with the health of the citizens and if one has to choose between health and wealth, keeping in view the expanded scope of Article 21 of the Constitution, health of the teeming millions of this country will have to take precedence over the greed of a few automobile manufacturers. The automobile manufacturers must behave responsibly. We expected that keeping in view our earlier order, they would have themselves volunteered to be BS-VI compliant by 31.03.2020. Unfortunately, this has not been the case with some of the manufacturers and they want to stretch on the timeline by a few days or months for no other reason but to make a little more money.
15. When we compare BS-VI fuel with BS-IV fuel, there is a massive improvement in environmental terms. Once BS-VI emission norms are enforced, there will be a 68% improvement in PM2.5. This is not a small change. It is a vast improvement and the faster it is brought, the better it is. The amicus curiae has strenuously urged that, at least, in the NCR of Delhi, the BS- VI norms be applied for sale of vehicles from 01.04.2020. We feel that it may not be practical to introduce BS-VI compliant vehicles region-wise or city-wise. In our view, the BS-IV experiment in this regard was not very successful. BS-VI compliant vehicles are going to be more expensive than BS-IV compliant vehicles. People have a tendency to buy cheaper vehicle(s) even from a neighboring city. We also strongly feel that the problem of pollution is not limited to the NCR of Delhi but it is a problem which has engulfed the entire country especially the major cities. India has the dubious distinction of having 15 out of the 20 most polluted cities in the world. The pollution in Gwalior, Raipur & Allahabad is worse than Delhi. The situation is alarming and critical. It brooks no delay.
16. It is an established principle of law that the right to life, as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to a decent environment2. It includes within its ambit 2 Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame AIR 1990 SC 630;(1990) 1 SCC 520.5
the right of a citizen to live in a clean environment3. With regard to vehicular traffic, this Court has issued a number of directions to ensure a clean environment and reduce pollution4. It has been held that the right to clean environment is a fundamental rights5. The right to live in an environment free from smoke and pollution follows from the "quality" of life which is an inherent part of Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to live with human dignity becomes illusory in the absence of a healthy environment6. The right to life not only means leading a life with dignity but includes within its ambit the right to lead a healthy, robust life in a clean atmosphere free from pollution. Obviously, such rights are not absolute and have to co-exist with sustainable development. Therefore, if there is a conflict between health and wealth, obviously, health will have to be given precedence. When we are concerned with the health of not one citizen but the entire citizenry including the future citizens of the country, the larger public interest has to outweigh the much smaller pecuniary interest of the industry, in this case the automobile industry, especially when the entire wherewithal to introduce the cleaner technology exists.
17. It is therefore necessary to ensure that BS-VI compliance is uniform throughout the country so that even those areas of the country which fortunately have not suffered the ills of extreme pollution are safe in the future. The sale of automobiles and other vehicles is rising exponentially and the number of vehicles on the road is increasing day by day. Therefore, even a day's delay in enforcing BS-VI norms is going to harm the health of the people. We are dealing here with a situation where children and unborn children suffer from pollution and issues of inter- generational equity are involved. Do we as a society or as manufacturers of automobiles have a right to manufacture more polluting vehicles when we have the technology to manufacture less polluting vehicles? The answer is obviously a big NO. If we were to factor only economics even then it makes no economic sense to have more polluting vehicles on the roads. The effect of pollution on the environment and health is so huge that it cannot be compensated in the marginal extra profits that the manufacturers might make. The amount spent on countering the ills of pollution such as polluted air, damaged lungs and the cost of healthcare far outweigh the profits earned.
18. It. was urged on behalf of the manufacturers that there are multiple sources of pollution and vehicles only contribute to 2% of the pollution. We are not in agreement with this submission 3 Bhavani River Sakthi Sugars Ltd., In re, (1998) 2 SCC 601 4 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1998) 6 SCC 60, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1998) 6 SCC 63, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Matter regarding emmission standard for vehicles), (1999) 6 SCC 12, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 191, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2017 SCC Online SC 394 5 N.D. Jayal v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 362.6
Shantistar Builders vs Narayan Khimalal Gotame & Ors. Etc, AIR 1990 SC 630, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,(2004) 12 SCC 118, State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 389. 6 because the Report of the Committee to which we have adverted hereinabove states that contribution of vehicles to ambient PM 2.5 concentration during winter season is 25% and in the summer season it contributes 9%. Even if we were to accept the figures submitted by SIAM, we are of the view that no step is too small when it comes to fighting pollution. Small steps to reduce pollution when taken together will lead to large scale reduction in pollution which will result in much cleaner air, which eventually will result in a cleaner and better environment, healthier citizens and most importantly a healthier generation to come.
19. In view of the fact that these proceedings have been pending in court for a long time and also in view of the fact that it is because of orders of this Court that BS-IV and now BS-VI norms have been introduced from the dates which were not even thought of by the Government, we feel that we have to take sup moto notice of the Rules. At the outset, we may notice that sub- rule 21 of Rule 115 is very vague. It does not talk of sale of vehicles. It only mentions registration of vehicles and permits registration of vehicles conforming to BS-IV norms up to 30.06.2020 and in case of categories M & N, up to 30.09.2020. This rule, in our view, is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution in as much as it extends time for registration of vehicles beyond 31.03.2020 and must be accordingly read down. Any extension of time in introducing the new norms which is not absolutely necessary adversely impacts the health of the citizens and is, therefore, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Rule goes against the spirit of all the orders passed earlier by this Court. In the month of March, 2017 we were dealing with a situation when BS-VI norms were to be made effective throughout the country with effect from 01.04.2020 and this Court had directed that non- BS-IV compliant vehicles shall not be registered on or after 01.04.2017. The situation in the present case is totally different. 31.03.2020 is almost 1 1/2 years away. There is sufficient time for the manufacturers to change over to the new system and, therefore, we see no reason why they should be given a window of three or six months for sale of accumulated vehicles. Every vehicle sold after the cut-off date of 01.04.2020 is bound to cause more pollution and, therefore, the manufacturers, in our considered view, cannot be permitted to sell any non-BS-VI compliant vehicle on or after 01.04.2020. On the one hand, the Government has been pro- active in spending huge amounts of money to move to the BS-VI technology, but on the other hand, the automobile industry is coming up with a variety of untenable excuses just to delay the introduction of BS-VI compliant vehicles by a few months. We, in our judgment dated 13.04.2017, had clearly held "when the health of millions of our countrymen is involved, notification relating to commercial activities ought not to be interpreted in a literal manner." We have to give a purposive interpretation to notifications specially those dealing with public health issues and even more so, when health not only of the citizens at present but also the citizens in the future is involved. There is more than sufficient time for the manufacturers to manufacture BS-VI compliant vehicles. They already have the technology to 7 do so. The automobile industry must show the will, responsibility and urgency in this regard.
20. The Government has developed a policy of phasing out polluting vehicles and discouraging the manufacturers of polluting vehicles. This has been done in a gradual manner. Europe introduced Euro-IV fuel in the year 2009 and Euro-VI standards in 2015. We are already many years behind them. We cannot afford to fall back further even by a single day. The need of the hour is to move to a cleaner fuel as early as possible.
21. Therefore, in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, we read down sub-rule 21 of Rule 115 and direct that sub-rule 21 of Rule 115 shall be interpreted and understood to read that no motor vehicle conforming to the emission standard Bharat Stage-IV shall be sold or registered in the entire country with effect from 01.04.2020."
5. There is another judgment of NGT in the matter of Original Application No. 21 of 2014, Vardhaman Kaushik vs. Union of India & Ors. and this Tribunal has issued directions as follows:
"12. The applications have been filed seeking permission to continue the use of 10 years old diesel vehicles or registration of new diesel vehicles which are non BS-IV compliant or which are not needed for essential services. Such applications cannot be allowed, since the order of Tribunal dated 11.12.2015 prohibits diesel vehicles and exception has been made only in the case of vehicles engaged for essential services, pending alternatives being explored."
6. The Applicant submits that Schedule VI, in part E of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 specify the noise limits relating to noise standards for vehicles at the manufacturing stage with effect from 1st July, 2005, which is to be monitored as per test method IS: 3028-1988,. The Applicant claims that he came to know recently that the Respondents are neither monitoring the noise levels of constructed vehicles at the manufacturing stage, in accordance with IS: 3028-1988 nor they are ensuring compliance of noise limits by these vehicles, as specified in Schedule VI, Part E, of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. The Applicant further submits that the noise pollution caused by the moving vehicles is, 8 by far the biggest contributor to the noise pollution all over the country and, therefore, it is necessary to enforce and monitor the compliance of noise standards for the vehicles at manufacturing stage, as prescribed under Schedule VI, Part E, of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. The Applicant further submits that the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, has defined the "air pollutants" as any solid, liquid or gaseous substance (including noise) in the atmosphere in such concentration as may be or tend to be injurious to human beings or other living creatures or plants or the property or environment. He further submits that by subsequent amendment the 'noise' has also been included as an 'air pollutant' in the said Act. The Applicant further submits that under Section 16 of the said Act, the Central Pollution Control Board has overall responsibility to improve quality of air and to prevent, control or abate air pollution in the country. Further, it is contended that as per Sub Section (2) (h) of Section 16 of this Act, the Respondent No.3, is required to lay down standards for the quality of air. The applicant also submits that State Pollution Control Board, i.e. Respondent No.4 is required under Section 17(i) (g) of this Act, to lay down, in consultation with the Central Board, and having regard to standards for quality of air, laid down by the Central Board, standards for emission of air pollutants into the atmosphere. The Applicant also submits that Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB), has powers to give instructions and directions under Section 31 A of the said Act for ensuring implementation of emissions standards discharged by automobiles, any vehicles or machinery in the atmosphere.
9
7. Before entering into the arena of above issues, we would like to lay emphasis on fact that increasing noise levels in the urban areas, is posing a serious threat to health of the people in general and especially to the children and old, in particular. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, have time and again emphasized the need to control noise pollution and we do not wish to reproduce all such catena of Judgments, as importance of maintaining noise levels within urban areas was generally agreed by the learned Counsel appearing in the present Application too. It is also an admitted fact that automobiles, due to its engine (auto mechanism) noise and also, noise generated by blowing of horns contribute significantly to ambient noise levels in urban areas. Needless to say that various reports available in the public domain, record that ambient noise levels in most of urban areas in the country are exceeding the ambient noise level standards as set out in the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. Noise pollution is a significant environmental problem in many urban areas. This problem has not been adequately addressed and remedied despite the fact that it is growing in developing countries. This widespread non- recognition of noise pollution problem, in a similar fashion as to air and water pollution problems, could be attributed to reasons such as; by the definition and perception of noise as a subjective experience, short decay time, and difficulty to associate cause with effect when it comes to health impacts. Depending on its duration and volume, the effects of noise on human health and comfort are divided into four categories; physical effects, such as hearing defects; physiological effects, such as increased blood pressure, irregularity of heart rhythms and ulcers; 10 psychological effects, such as disorders, sleeplessness and going to sleep late, irritability and stress; and finally effects on work performance, such as reduction of productivity and misunderstanding what is heard.
8. The present Application raises a substantial issue of implementation of noise standards of automobiles as defined under Environment Protection Rules. We have noted that Govt. of India has already notified such standards under the provisions of Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. These standards have two phases of implementation of noise limits, for vehicles at manufacturing stage: (1) for the vehicles manufactures from 2003 and (2) for the vehicles manufactured from 1st April, 2005. The standards also stipulate that test method to be followed for enforcing such noise limits, shall be IS: 3028-1998. These standards are mentioned in paragraphs (5) and (6), as shown herein above.
9. The Motor vehicle rule 120 prescribes the noise standards for automobiles at manufacturing stage and are as under:
"120. (1) xxx xxx xxxx xxxx (2) Noise standards--Every motor vehicle shall be constructed and maintained so as to conform to noise standards specified in Part E of the Schedule VI to the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, when tested as per IS:
3028-1998, as amended from time to time. Similarly, Section 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, stipulate the requirement that prototype every motor vehicle to be subjected to test. The Rule is reproduced below:
126. Prototype of every motor vehicle to be subject to test---
On and from the date of 'Commencement' of Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules 1993, every [manufacturer or importer] of motor vehicles other than trailers and semi- trailers shall submit the prototype of the vehicle [to be manufactured or imported by him] for test by the Vehicle Research and Development Establishment of the Ministry of Defence of the Government of India or Automotive Research Association of India, Pune, [or the, Central Farm Machinery Testing and Training Institute, Budni (MP)] or the Indian 11 Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, [or the Central Institute of Road Transport, Pune, or the International Centre, for Automotive Technology. Manesar,] [or the Northern. Region Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute, Hisar testing of combine harvester)] and such other agencies as may be specified by the Central Government or granting a certificate by that agency as to the compliance of provisions of the Act and these rules:
[Provided that the procedure for type approval and certification of motor vehicles of compliance to these rules shall be in accordance with the AIS; 017-2000, as amended from time to time:] [Provided further that in respect to the vehicles imported into India as completely built units (CBU), the importer shall submit a vehicle of that particular model and type to the testing agencies for granting a certificate by that agency as to the compliance to the provision of the Act and these rules.] [126A. The testing agencies referred to in rule 126 shall in accordance with the procedures laid down by the Central Government also conduct tests on vehicles drawn from the production line of the manufacturer to verify whether these vehicles conform to the provisions of [rules made under section 110 of the Act]:] [Provided that in case the number of vehicles sold in India for a given base model and its variants (manufactured in India or imported to India) are less than 250 in any consecutive period of six months in a year, then such base model and its variants need not be subjected to the above test, if at least one model or its variants manufactured or imported by that manufacturer or importer, as the case may be, is subjected to such tests at least once in a year:
Provided further that, in case the number of base models and its variants manufactured/imported is more than one and if the individual base model and its variants are less than 250 in any consecutive period of six months in a year, then the testing agencies can pick up one of the vehicle out of such models and their variants once in a year for carrying out such test.]"
10. The provisions of Rule 120 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 are very specific as standards specified under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 have been adopted for every motor vehicle at construction stage and also while it is put to use. Therefore it is necessary that compliance of such standards, need to be independently verified and assessed by the concern agencies while granting Certificate of Test, under the Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. It is necessary that the provisions of 12 IS: 3028-1998, shall be strictly adhered to while testing noise limits from the automobiles.
11. In the absence of an effective mechanism to enforce and implement the Noise standards prescribed under the EP Rules and Motor Vehicles Rules, the noise pollution mainly in urban areas cannot be effectively controlled. Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court decisions referred by Applicant in the Application have given significant impetus to the implementation of noise related regulations. The Apex Court in WP (c) No.72 of 1998 with CA No.3735 of 2005 (arising out of SLP (c) No.2185) (2005) 5 SCC 733 in "Re: Noise Pollution vs Unknown 18 July, 2005" observed that:
"98. Not that the Legislature and the Executive in India are completely unmindful of the menace of noise pollution. Laws have been enacted and the Rules have been framed by the Executive for carrying on the purposes of the legislation. The real issue is with the implementation of the laws. What is needed is the will to implement the laws. It would be useful to have a brief resume of some of the laws which are already available on the Statute Book. Treatment of the problem of noise pollution can be dealt under the Law of Crimes and Civil Law. Civil law can be divided under two heads (i) The Law of Torts and (ii) The General Civil Law. The cases regarding noise have not come before the law courts in large quantity. The reason behind this is that many people in India did not consider noise as a sort of pollution and they are not very much conscious about the evil consequences of noise pollution. The level of noise pollution is relative and depends upon a person and a particular place. The law will not take care of a super sensitive person but the standard is of an average and rational human being in the society."
33. The Apex Court further observed that:
169. The need for checking noise pollution as highlighted by the petitioners and several interveners deserves appreciation.
170. Need for specific legislation to control and prevent noise pollution still needs some emphasis. Undoubtedly, some laws have been enacted. Yet, compared with the legislation in developed countries India is still lagging behind in enacting adequate and scientific legislations. We need to have one simple but specific and detailed legislation dealing with several aspects referable to noise pollution and providing measures of control therefore.13
171. There is an equal need of developing mechanism and infrastructure for enforcement of the prevalent laws. Those who are entrusted with the task of enforcing laws directed towards controlling noise pollution, must be so trained as to acquire expertize in the matter of fighting against noise pollution by taking preventive and deterrent measures both. They need to be equipped with the requisite equipments such as audio meters as would help them in detecting the level of noise pollution more so when it crosses the permissible limits and the source thereof.
172. Above all, there is need for creating general awareness towards the hazardous effects of noise pollution....."
12. In substance, it can be observed that there is no effective mechanism for implementation of noise standards for automobiles.
Though the Respondents have taken some steps, but they are pointing fingers towards others in the context of duty to perform the Rules. There is lack of synergy and coordination amongst the Respondents. This cannot be allowed to continue, in view of the serious impacts of noise pollution. The Apex court has clearly focused on implementation of existing regulations and also, need of specific regulations while dealing with noise pollution. The applicant submits that:
(a) the maximum noise levels in relation to certain classes of motor vehicles and motor vehicle accessories, such that vehicles and accessories capable of emitting those noise levels cannot be sold,
(b) the use of motor vehicles on roads and other places,
(c) the use of motor vehicle horns and motor vehicle intruder alarms,
(d) the times during which it is not permissible to use certain motor vehicles if they emit noise that can be heard in other residential premises,
(e) the sounding of sirens and similar devices on vessels,
(f) the emission of noise from the engines or exhausts of vessels,
(g) the times during which it is not permissible to use certain sound systems on vessels if they emit noise that can be heard in any residential premises, 14
(h) the maintenance of noise control equipment on motor vehicles and vessels,
(i) the issue of defective vehicle notices and defective vessel notices.
13. This particular provision clearly implies that once the standard is prescribed by the State-Board for emission of air pollutants from automobiles under Section 17 (1) (g) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, State Govt. is required to give such instructions, on recommendations of SPCBs, as may be deemed necessary to the concerned Authority in-charge of registration of the motor vehicles under the Central Motor Vehicles Act and such Authority shall notwithstanding anything containing in that Act, or Rules made there under be bound to comply with such instructions. Govt. of Maharashtra vide GR dated 21st April, 2009, has directed the Transport Authorities to implement the noise standards identified under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. Though we appreciate the initiatives taken by State of Maharashtra and MPCB, we find that this delegation of powers, is not backed up by provisions of Section 17 and 20 of Air Act, 1981 or other regulations. It is also not clear how the Transport department, i.e. R-7 will implement this provision, as they have already filed affidavit that they just rely on the certificate of road worthiness as contemplated under the MV Rules. What we find is that the Authorities need to consider either prescribing new standards for the vehicle noise in the State under the provisions of Air Act or may even like to adopt the standards specified under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 for the purpose under Section 17 (1) (g) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and then the State Govt. can direct the 15 Transport Authorities, under Section 20 read with Section 17 (1) (g) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, which will enable them with legal powers and empower to implement such directions.
14. Public awareness, education and information dissemination related to environmental issues have already been identified as important initiatives by various judgments of Apex court. Apex Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 72 of 1998 with Civil Appeal No. 3735 of 2005 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2185 (2005) 5 SCC 733 has issued directions as directed in para 179 of the judgment, issued in exercise of power conferred on Apex Court under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India, which would remain in force until modified by Court or superseded by an appropriate legislation, which are as under:
"1. There is a need for creating general awareness towards the hazardous effects of noise pollution. Suitable chapters may be added in the text-books which teach civic sense to the children and youth at the initial/early level of education. Special talks and lectures be organised in the schools to highlight the menace of noise pollution and the role of the children and younger generation in preventing it. Police and civic administration should be trained to understand the various methods to curb the problem and also the laws on the subject.
2. The State must play an active role in this process. Residents Welfare Associations, Service Clubs and Societies engaged in preventing noise pollution as a part of their projects need to be encouraged and actively involved by the local administration.
3. Special public awareness campaigns in anticipation of festivals, events and ceremonial occasions whereat firecrackers are likely to be used, need to be carried out."
15. The provision of information on sound emissions due to automobile to consumers and public authorities has the potential to influence purchasing decisions and accelerate the transition to a quieter 16 vehicle fleet. Accordingly, we hold that the automobile manufacturers should provide information on sound levels of vehicles at the point of sale and in technical promotional material, providing information to the consumers about the sound emissions of a vehicle and also the horns based on Precautionary Principle. It is also necessary that the certificate of compliance issued under rule 120 (2) or even that of horn/silencer etc. for each type approval shall also be provided to the automobile purchaser and also, the same shall be available on automobile manufacturer's website in public domain, for each prototype of vehicle. The MPCB shall notify the noise emission standards for vehicles at manufacturing and in- use stage and thereafter issue necessary directions under Section 20 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, to the concerned Authorities for enforcement of such standards.
16. After considering above points as raised by the applicant, we are of the view that the rules and regulation and notifications issued from time to time by the Govt. of India to improve the quality of the environment, including limiting the emission of vehicular pollutants, both in new and unused vehicles should be applied in the State of Maharashtra and the conditions as laid down in the affidavit submitted by the respondent no. 1- Transport Commissioner, Maharashtra must be complied in letter and spirit. In light of the report submitted by MSPCB, we further direct respondents:
1. To ensure strict compliance of Rule 115 sub Rule (7) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 stipulated that only vehicles that carry valid "PUC: Certificate issued by authorised agency 17 are permitted to ply in the State of Maharashtra so as to prevent air pollution due to vehicles do not having PUC certificate.
2. To record the PUC data only so to automatically linked with the Central Server with uniform standardise software.
3. To introduce annual third party inspection of PUC centres.
4. To limit the number of PUC centres upgrade them under strong supervision and quality control.
5. To ensure 100%compliance by linking annual vehicle insurance and vehicle registration with PUC certificate.
6. To adopt uniform and standardised data recording and reporting format and uniform software and introduce automatic online network for transmission of PUC data to the Central Server and to allow proper analysis of data for remote auditing of PUC centres.
7. To strengthen inspection of PUC centres for quality control and strengthen the licensing programme to ensure proper calibration authentic test, annual maintenance contract for the maintenance of all testing equipment and accessories training of operators, calibration of equipment etc. are carried out.
8. To make quality audit of centres and calibration quarterly.
9. To upgrade testing centres for high level of automatic emission testing so that operators and vehicles drivers are prevented from manipulation of results.
10. To introduce well equipped mobile test centres and a programme to check visibly polluting vehicles.18
17. Accordingly, Original Application No. 117 of 2017 is finally disposed of.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Siddhanta Das, EM June 25, 2020 Original Application No. 117/2017 (WZ) MN 19