Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh And Ors. vs Pawan Kumar on 6 February, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)118PLR535
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Gharsi Ram filed a suit against Pawan Kumar on 29.7.1995 seeking injunction against him from causing any nuisance pollution resulting from the noise caused by running of the machine in his factory. During the pendency of the suit, another suit was brought by other neighbours, namely, Ramesh Kumar and others, which was filed on 30.11.1995 where identical relief was asked for. The basic averments in the plaint were that the defendant was running the factory and the machines operated by him were causing unbearable noise and were further causing vibrations in the houses of the plaintiffs and was constant source of irritation to the plaintiffs.
2. The suit was contested by the defendant. His plea was that he had installed the machines by taking clearance from the concerned authorities i.e. Haryana State Board for the Control of Water Pollution vide letter dated 8.2.1995 and also the license from the Municipal Committee, Bhiwani and the sanction from the Industrial Department, Haryana Government. It was further averred that no noise or any other pollution was caused by the running of the machines in the factory of the defendant
3. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 19.1.1996 held as under:-
"The Local Commissioner visited the site in dispute including the premises of the applicant as well as premises of the factory in question and he also saw the function of the factory has reported that lot of noise was heard, when he switched the Grinder Machine and Mixing Machine etc. of the factory, but no vibration was felt. He has reported that when the stooder and washing machines were switched some smell smoke were felt in the side hall of the factory, but it was not coming out of the hall. From the report of the Local Commissioner it is clear that a noise is created by running all the machines of the factory. Therefore, in view of the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant AIR 1978 Allahabad page 68 and AIR 1936 Madras 905 (supra) when the nuisance is caused by way of running the machine by the respondent, then the complainant is entitled for the injunction as loss is caused to the plaintiff/applicant by way of loss in physical comforts. The licences which the respondent has obtained is regarding the running of the factory, but it is not regarding the creating any noise and causing nuisance to the inhabitants of the locality where the factory of the respondent is situated. Under these circumstances in my opinion, the prima-facie case is in favour of the applicant; balance of convenience is also in his favour and moreover the applicant will suffer an irreparable loss in case the injunction is not granted and I, therefore, accordingly restrain the respondent to create and cause nuisance by way of creating noise and by running the factory in question, till the final disposal of the suit. This application is hereby allowed without any order as to costs."
4. This order of the learned trial Court dated 19.1.1996 was assailed in appeals before the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, who dismissed the appeals but granted one month's time to the defendant in the suit for getting clearance from the Pollution Department in relation to noise. In the period of one month he was directed to find out ways and means to prevent the noise causing disturbance to the plaintiffs.
5. Aggrieved from this order four revision petitions have been preferred before this Court. Civil Revisions No. 1919 of 1997 and 1920 of 1997 have been preferred by Pawan Kumar defendant in the suit as he is aggrieved from the judgments of the Courts below, Gharsi Ram and Ramesh Kumar and others being aggrieved from the grant of period of one month to the respondent in their appeals before the learned Appellate Court have preferred Civil Revisions No. 3469 of 1996 and 3471 of 1996 respectively. As all the four revision Petitions arise from one and the same judgment, it will be hot only convenient but appropriate to dispose of these revision petitions by a common judgment. Thus, I proceed to dispose of all the four revision petitions by this judgment.
6. The suits for injunction against Pawan Kumar are pending before the trial Court. On the interim applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. the Court while allowing the applications partially directed said Pawan Kumar to take appropriate measures to prevent noise pollution and consequent disturbance to the plaintiffs in the suits. As is clear from the judgments of the Courts below that a Local Commissioner was appointed who had visited the premises in the presence of the parties. The allegation of the plaintiffs in regard to vibrations being caused in the houses of the plaintiffs as a result of running of the machines was not found at this stage to be so well founded and consequently this aspect of the case of the plaintiffs was not believed prima facie by the Courts below.
7. The report of the local commissioner in regard to causing noise pollution by running of the grinders, mixing machines and motors was against the defendant and relief to that extent was granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. Though the report of the local commissioner is not an absolute evidence at this stage and would have to be scrutinised with greater care and effectiveness at the stage of the trial, but at this stage who the Court is concerned with a prima-facie view, the report would certainly form an acceptable basis for passing of interim order or directions. It may be true that, the defendant is operating his machines and running the factory after obtaining permission from the concerned department, but none of the permissions mentioned relate to control of noise pollution. In the present day if a factory is run in a residential colony or even in semi-residential colony and such running of the machines becomes a continuous source of irritation, nuisance or a threat to the adjacent properties, the plaintiff(s) would be at liberty to approach the Court for seeking appropriate relief. Such an act on the part of the defendant would give rise to an actionable cause in favour of the plaintiff(s)
8. Noise is not a nuisance simplicitor, but in given circumstances can cause health hazards. The effect of a noise in excess of the permissible parameters is specified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Such standards have been specified under the rules framed Under Section 6 of this Act. The quality of life can be adversely affected by a noise pollution as it is bound to affect the sleep, hearing, manner of communication and would obviously affect the mental and physical health and working efficiency of the persons. It is strange matter that the concerned authorities whose primary obligation is to ensure health and prevent all possible kind of pollutions have ignored the basic need for controlling the pollution.
9. It is conceded before me that the defendant does not have any permission from the Environmental Control Boards in relation to noise. The noise itself is actionable wrong in law and noise causing nuisance could no way be taken outside the ambit or circumference of actionable wrongs. It is an implied obligation upon the defendant to prevent noise pollution even if he has permission from the competent authorities to run a factory in the area in question where the plaintiffs and others have their residential houses. Industrial development must no way be permitted to cause pollutions or nuisance for a common citizen. The report of the local commissioner was very specific and has been rightly relied upon by the learned Courts below. The judgments of the learned Courts below which are concurrent in regard to a prima facie view for grant of injunction at this stage and an irreparable loss and damage to the plaintiffs are well founded and are in consonance with the settled principles of law.
10. The contention of the petitioners Gharsi Ram and Ramesh Kumar and others that the learned Appellate Court has erred in granting one month's time to Pawan Kumar for taking effective, steps for controlling the noise pollution is illegal, and not well founded. Injunction is a relief of equity and the Court must drive, a balance between the parties on the basic rule of equity and law. The grant of period neither infringes nor can be termed as a perverse approach keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case. To my mind grant of such period was essential to meet the ends of justice. There is no jurisdictional or other error apparent on the face of the record in the judgments of the Court, below which would justify interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. On the contrary, the orders are good and sustainable on well enunciated principles of equity and law governing the subject. All the revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No order as to coats.
11. While dismissing these revision petitions, it is clarified that the respondent Pawan Kumar must take all preventive measures to control the noise within a period of one month from today, if not already taken. The Haryana Board for Control of Water and Air Pollution is directed to inspect the premises in the presence of the parties after one month from today positively and ensure compliance of this order. Report in this regard would be submitted by the Board before the learned trial Court. Copies of this order shall be given dasti to the parties and the Registry shall also sent a copy to the concerned Pollution Control Board forthwith.