Mohd. Akhtar and Another vs Municipal Council and Others

A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J.—Heard counsel for the parties. By consent, taken up for final hearing forthwith. The substantive relief claimed in this writ petition is to direct respondents No. 1 to 4 to take appropriate legal action against respondent No. 5 for violating the permissible limits specified under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. Respondent No. 5 is allegedly carrying on industrial activity in a residential area. Even the Authorities of the Pollution Control Board, on inspection, have found that the noise level, because of the activity of respondent No. 5, exceeds the permissible limit and had reached up to 62 dB(A). That was impermissible and is required to be remedied by respondent No. 5. It is not in dispute that directions have been issued to respondent No. 5 by the concerned Authority to take corrective measures in that behalf. It is also noticed that the petitioner was forced to approach Courts from time to time because of the nuisance created by respondent No. 5 due to the alleged industrial activity.

In our opinion, this petition can be disposed of by directing respondent No. 5 to ensure that the noise pollution limits specified under the Rules of 2000 shall not be breached because of his activities, at any given point of time; and further respondent No. 5 shall forthwith take corrective steps as directed by respondents No. 3 and 4. That shall be done within two weeks from today, failing which the Authorities would be free to take appropriate legal action against respondent No. 5. In addition, the petitioner will be free to proceed against respondent No. 5 in accordance with law, including to initiate criminal action and for having committed contempt of Court for having violated the order passed today. All questions in that behalf will be considered on its own merits as and when occasion arises. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.

Copy dasti.