Kerala High Court
Ajith Kumar R vs The Environmental Engineer on 15 October, 2019
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 23RD ASWINA, 1941
WP(C).No.17703 OF 2019(K)
PETITIONER:
AJITH KUMAR R.
AGED 54 YEARS
SON OF V. RAJAPPAN, RESIDING AT MAYOORAM,
KUTHIRAPANTHY, THIRUVAMPADY P.O., ALLEPPEY, KERALA,
PIN-688002.THENHIPALAM P.O., PIN-673636.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
SRI.SANJAY JOHNSON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
ALLEPPEY DISTRICT OFFICE, THATHAMPALLY,
ALAPPUZHA - 688013
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CCSB ROAD, CIVIL
STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA - 688012
3 THE PRESIDENT, VADAKKAL SHANMUGHAVILASOM SRI
SUBRAMANYA SWAMY TEMPLE,
KUTHIRAPANTHY, THIRUVAMPADY, ALAPPUZHA - PIN-688002
R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.MANURAJ K.J, GP
SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.17703 OF 2019(K)
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the 3rd respondent is causing sound pollution by unauthorized use of loud speakers and sound amplification systems and that this is causing unbearable agony and nuisance to his family, including his father, who is a cancer patient. He says that he, therefore, preferred several representations before the 1st respondent - Kerala State Pollution Control Board as also the 2nd respondent - The Deputy Superintendent of Police, but that no tangible action has come out of it until now. He, therefore, prays that the official respondents be directed to take immediate steps to abate the nuisance and to issue necessary directions to the 3rd respondent to stop the unauthorized use of the loud speakers and sound amplification systems.
2. The learned Government Pleader submits that a statement has been filed on behalf of the 2 nd respondent wherein the following has been stated:
"As per the statement of Sri. Sivadas, Secretary of WP(C).No.17703 OF 2019(K) 3 Vadackal Shanmughavilasam Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, they have been using only two paper boxes at their temple for broadcasting the devotional songs at the time of daily poojas in the morning, noon and in the evening and the duration of playing songs is about only 10-15 minutes. He stated that three corn type speakers were placed in a tree near to the temple earlier and those speakers have been removed recently since it became unusable. He also stated that since the temple is not financially sound they are not capable to depute a person for performing "Sopana Sangeetham" so they used to play cassettes during the time of poojas. He further stated that since they knew the complaint raised by Sri.Ajith Kumar, they have made all possible arrangements at the temple for reducing the noise level produced by the paper boxes placed in front of the temple and they will obey any direction by the Honorable Court in this regard."
On 24.07.2019, I have issued notices to the President and Secretary of Vadackal Shanmughavilasom Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple for taking immediate action to avoid the sound pollution caused by the use of paper boxes at their temple and warned them about the legal WP(C).No.17703 OF 2019(K) 4 provisions for the violation.
It is submitting that on 25.07.2019 the Environmental Engineer, Pollution Control Board, Alappuzha produced a report to this office and it is stated that they have conducted sound monitoring at the house premises of the petitioner and the temple compound before and during the use of loud speaker and found that the sound variation at the temple premises is 13.3 dB(A) and at the premises of petitioner is 7.8 dB(A). It is further reported that sound variation at the time of use of loudspeaker at the premises of temple is higher than the permissible limit (10 dB(A)) and sound level at the time of use of loud speaker at the premises of petitioner's house is within the permissible limit. As per the opinion of the Environmental Engineer, the sound pollution can be avoided by reducing the voice at the source, ie reducing the sound of paper boxes at the temple.
It is also submitting that on 25.07.2019, the Secretary of Vadackal Shanmughavilasom Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple has informed that they have changed the direction of paper box which was placed towards south western side; ie pointing the residence of petitioner, to the northern side in view of the petition and WP(C).No.17703 OF 2019(K) 5 for avoiding the sound effect at the premises of the petitioner".
He says that, in view of the afore steps already taken, the noise pollution to the petitioner may have been substantially reduced, if not abated fully. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be ordered, directing the official respondents to ensure that all necessary steps are taken in this regard.
3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board initially sought time to file counter pleadings in this matter, but submitted that if this Court is so inclined, they are willing to monitor the volume of sound emanating from the 3rd respondent and to ensure that the petitioner is not put any prejudice. He says that necessary action in this regard will be taken and completed without any delay.
4. Even though notice from this Court has been validly served on the 3rd respondent, they have chosen neither to be present before this Court or to be represented through counsel, inferentially persuading me to think that WP(C).No.17703 OF 2019(K) 6 they have nothing to offer in answer to the various allegations in this writ petition.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct both respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the sound systems being used by the 3 rd respondent does not, in any manner, cause pollution either to the petitioner or to the persons in the locality and that all necessary steps are taken to abate any such nuisance immediately and without any delay. Since the afore extracted statement of the 2 nd respondent shows that certain steps have been taken, I direct the said Authority to immediately cause an inspection of the premises in question and ensure that the directions issued by them are implicitly complied with.
Needless to say, if any further complaint is made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent will forthwith take necessary action, including by inspection of the premises and then take all steps to abate any noise pollution being still caused by the 3rd respondent.
I, however, make it clear that if the 3 rd respondent WP(C).No.17703 OF 2019(K) 7 operates the loud speaker/sound amplification systems in terms of law, the directions in this judgment will not stand in the way of them doing so, as long as it complies with all applicable Statutes and Regulations.
I also leave full liberty to the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent - Police Authority, if and when there is any violation of the directions herein.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Bng/16.10.19 WP(C).No.17703 OF 2019(K) 8 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 18.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT WITH COPY OF THE PETITIONER.