Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. It is said that respondent 9 is a joint venture formed as a consortium between GMR Group having 54% share, Airport Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as 'AAI') having 26% share and Fraport AG. Incidentally, Fraport AG manages most airports in Germany and is aware as to how should control huge noise pollution caused by aviation particularly and also aware of the fact of night curfew at airports in Germany.

14. Copies of the above complaints were also sent to other respondents. Respondent 2 i.e., Central Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'CPCB') vide letter dated 03.01.2023 asked Director General of Directorate General of Civil Aviation i.e., respondent 5 and Delhi Pollution Control Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'DPCC') i.e., respondent 6 to ensure compliance with the noise limits as prescribed under Notification dated 18.06.2018 and control noise pollution. DPCC also sent a letter dated 06.02.2023 asking Director General of Directorate General of Civil Aviation to ensure compliance of noise pollution limits and control noise pollution.

19. It is however, complained that despite knowledge that immense pollution is caused by aircrafts at airports, no steps whatsoever have been taken by respondents though they are under an obligation by virtue of Article 51(A)(g) of Constitution of India. Lacs of citizens living under landing are impacted and deprived of their environmental rights to have peaceful sleep due to actual noise pollution which is seriously impacting health of citizens. Respondents are not controlling huge pollution caused by aircrafts and permitting damage to health of the entire population living under landing funnel, hence all the Statutory Authorities are guilty of breach of their fundamental duties cast upon them in the Constitution. This Tribunal declined to accede the request of applicant in the earlier proceedings for imposing night curfew of landing or taking off by aircrafts at night time and also for providing sound proofing of the houses in the colonies, falling on the flight pathway of aircrafts while landing and taking off, in view of fact that it had already directed respondents' authorities to take all mitigating measures for reducing noise pollution expeditiously. However, respondents have failed in their duty of taking such measures as directed. On the one hand, respondent 2 i.e., CPCB; respondent 6 i.e., DPCC and respondent 8 i.e., Lt. Governor of Delhi are enforcing ban on crackers, loudspeakers after 10:30 pm, pressure horns etc. in the light of directions of Supreme Court but when question of controlling noise pollution caused by aircrafts arises, they go silent and do not take any action in the matter.

20. Applicant has placed reliance on this Tribunal's judgment in OA 181/2013, Omesh Saigal vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2017 SCC OnLine NGT 744 decided on 04.10.2017 by Principal Bench, wherein the question of noise pollution caused by traffic passing on both sides of outer ring road dividing the area into two, affecting health of residents of Panchsheela Park area was considered.

21. OA 181/2013 (supra) was disposed of with certain directions which are contained in para 30 of the judgment and read as under:

ii. Further, we direct that the installation of speed cameras has be to completed within December 2017 and immediately thereafter the violators should be challaned. We further direct that DDA, Delhi Government and PWD to report to the NGT every three months about the progress on the directions issued by this Tribunal."

22. MoEF&CC has issued "Environmental Impact Assessment of Guidance Manual for Airports" in February 2010, wherein it is stated in para 4.4 of chapter 4 that emission from aircrafts below 1000 feet, above the ground (typically around 3 km from departure or, for arrivals, around 6 km from touchdown) are chiefly involved in influencing local air quality. An extract of the Manual has been placed on record as annexure 12 which shows that para 4.4 deals with air environment i.e., Ambient Air Quality for airport projects. It is alleged that respondents are complying and enforcing law made for regulating noise pollution in a selective manner and while stringent actions are being taken against the common people, the others having high status are not being touched. Respondents are trustees of environment for common citizens and must act for the benefit of public in relation to natural resources like air, water and climate. When aircraft is operated, two types of noise are generated. One side-line noise is generated when aircraft is preparing for landing at or taking off from the airport. It is noise caused by engine at the time of landing or taking off. Higher the speed at the time of landing and/or higher engine force at the time of taking off, higher is the noise. Second is the noise generated immediately after landing as the aircrafts apply reverse thrust to quickly bring aircraft to halt without using brakes so that the brake drums and brake pads are not heated. Almost all domestic aircrafts by landing at airport generate higher side-line noise before landing due to speed. Noise generated at the time of landing is much more than the prescribed limit. The use of river thrust has been left with the discretion of pilots under the instructions of respondent 5 but the same pilots when on international flights do not use 'reverse thrust' and follow all the laws due to stringent conditions at some international air ports but do not adopt same practice at the airports in India. Very lesser number of noise monitoring sensors have been installed so the recording of noise level generated by aircrafts is not regular and available at all airports. Exposure to huge noise pollution caused various health hazards like high blood pressure, sleep disturbance, insomnia, stress and depression, diabetes etc. Despite knowing serious impact and consequences of high noise pollution and also amendment of Rules of EP Rules 1986 and 2018, appropriate steps for meeting law have not been taken so far. It is in this backdrop, applicant has filed present OA seeking following reliefs: