Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.35 seconds)Article 26 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Police Act, 1888
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
The Madras Towns Nuisances Act, 1889
Raja D.V. Appa Rao Bahadur And Ors. vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu By ... on 5 February, 1993
In our view, the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant deserves to be rejected because
the direction given by the learned Judge to the authorities
is only to follow the guidelines laid down in Appa Raos
case decided by the Division Bench of the same High Court on
the basis of the Madras City Police Act, 1888 and the Madras
Towns Nuisance Act, 1889. It is also in conformity with the
Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 framed
by the Central Government under the provisions of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with rule 5 of the
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. Rule 3 of the Noise
Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 provides for
ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for
different areas/zones as specified in the Schedule annexed
to the rule which is as under:-
Om Birangana Religious Society Through ... vs The State And Ors. on 1 April, 1996
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents contended that the appellant-Church has
deliberately tried to give religious colour to this cause of
action as respondent no.1 - Welfare Association is
consisting of members belonging to all religions as found by
the High Court. It is contended that even if the contention
of the appellant-Churchthat the noise created by it is
within the prescribed limitis taken as it is, the order
passed by the High Court will not in any way prejudice the
right of religious practice of appellant because the order
of the High Court is only with regard to reducing the noise
pollution in that area. It is further contended that the
High Court can pass orders to protect and preserve a very
fundamental right of citizen under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India. He relied upon the judgment of
Calcutta High Court in Om Birangana Religious Society v.
The State and others [CWN 1995-96 (Vol.100) 617] wherein the
Court dealt with a similar matter. The questions posed by
the Court for consideration werewhether the public are
captive audience or listener when permission is given for
using loud-speakers in public and the person who is
otherwise unwilling to bear the sound and/or the music or
the communication made by the loud-speakers, but he is
compelled to tolerate all these things against his will and
health? Does it concern simply a law and order situation?
Does it not generate sound pollution? Does it not affect
the other known rights of a citizen? Even if a citizen is
ill and even if such a sound may create adverse effect on
his physical and mental condition, yet he is made a captive
audience to listen. The High Court held that:
1