Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.02.2018
DELIVERED ON : 05.02.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P(MD)No.23469 of 2017
and
W.M.P(MD)No.19729 of 2017
Ashtalakshmi Nagar, Ashtalakshmi Nagar Extension,
R.K.Puram Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam,
represented by its
Secretary,
C.Jeyaraman,
Ward No.63,
Kattoor Post,
Trichy - 600 019. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Police,
Central Zone,
Trichy.
2.The District Collector,
Trichy District,
Trichy.
3.The Commissioner,
Trichy Municipal Corporation,
Cantonment, Trichy.
4.The District Environment Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Trichy.
5.The Superintendent of Police,
Trichy District,
Trichy.
6.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thiruverumbur Division,
Trichy District - 14.
7.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruverumbur Division,
Trichy District.
8.The Local Planning Authority,
Tiiruchirappalli Local Planning Authority,
Trichy, Trichy District.
9.Arputha Kulanthai Yesu Alayam,
Kulanthai Yesu Nagar,
Kattoor, Trichy,
represented by its
Church Father,
Susai Raj
10.The Secretary to Government,
Public Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai ? 600 009. ... Respondents
(R10 suo-motu impleaded as per the order of
this Court dated 21/12/2017 made in this writ petition)
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 7
herein to take appropriate action against the ninth respondent who is
creating noise pollution by using prohibited horn type loudspeaker without
getting any permission or licence, within the time limit that may be
stipulated by this Court.
!For Petitioner : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
^For Respondents : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah
Government Advocate
for R.1, R.2, R.5, R.6, R.7 & R10
Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan
Additional Government Pleader for R.3
Dispensed with - R.4, R.8 & R.9
:ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 7 herein to take appropriate action against the ninth respondent who is creating noise pollution by using prohibited horn type loudspeaker without getting any permission or licence, within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.
2. Considering the nature of the issue involved herein, this Court by order dated 21.12.2017, suo-motu, impleaded the Secretary to Government, Public Department, Fort St. George, Chennai ? 600 009, as the tenth respondent in this writ petition.
3. Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 10. Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the third respondent. In view of the order that is going to be passed, notice to the other respondents is dispensed with.
4. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
5. According to the petitioner, the petitioner Sangam is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and the members of the petitioner Sangam are residing in the said area. Meanwhile, the ninth respondent - Church without obtaining proper permission from the competent authority, constructed a prayer hall and further, is using banned horn type long handle loudspeakers and thereby, created noise pollution in that locality. Due to the act of the ninth respondent, the residents therein are suffering a lot because of noise pollution caused by him.
6. Further, the ninth respondent used the horn speakers as against the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and caused hindrance to the students and patients in that area. Therefore, the petitioner Sangam made a representation to the respondents to initiate appropriate action against the ninth respondent, but no action is forthcoming so far. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the ninth respondent has conducted the prayers all along the day by using the banned horn type long handle loudspeakers with high volume and he also erected loudspeakers in eight directions permanently. Despite several restrictions were imposed on the use of loudspeakers, the ninth respondent having disregard to those rules framed under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, violated the same and caused noise pollution to the extent possible and thus, the petitioner Sangam made several representations to the authorities concerned seeking appropriate action against the use of loudspeakers by the ninth respondent, however, their request did not see the light of the day so far and hence, he prayed for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 7 to take appropriate action against the ninth respondent for the use of the banned loudspeakers.
8. Heard the submissions of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 10 and also, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent in this regard.
9. At the outset itself, this Court finds it appropriate to refer to some of the decisions relating to the negative impact of 'Noise Pollution' on the society and the need of the hour to reduce and/or curtail the same to the maximum extent possible for the betterment of the lives and they are:
9.1. In Appa Rao, M.S. v. Govt. of T.N., (1995) 1 LW 319 (Mad), the Madras High Court taking a note of the serious health hazard and disturbance to public order and tranquility caused by the uncontrolled noise pollution prevailing in the State, issued a writ of mandamus for directing State Government to impose strict conditions for issue of license for the use of amplifiers and loudspeakers and for directing Director-General, Police (Law and Order) to impose total ban on use of horn type loudspeakers and amplifiers and air horns of automobiles.
9.2. The impact of noise pollution caused by cone speakers and its deleterious effect on public has been emphasised by K.P.Sivasubramaniam,J., in the case of Church of God (Full Gospel) Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu in W.P.No.34449 of 2002 dated 28.2.2003. Paragraph 20 of the said judgment, which is relevant to re-emphasis for the present scenario, is set out hereunder:
"20. While parting with this case, I am also inclined to caution the petitioners as well as such religious enthusiasts/ fundamentalists, to practice their respective faith in a cultured way and not to resort to aggressive or unfair methods and resorting to a method of worship which is inhuman. God, to whichever religion He belongs to, is said to be present everywhere and does not require a blaring and deafening amplifier to hear the prayer of his devotees. The nature of evil and adverse effects which noise pollution causes to the children, aged, sickly, pregnant women and even normal individuals and how it disturbs the student community etc., have been repeatedly emphasised with scientific facts and figures, any number of times in newspapers, magazines, health journals and other media. Whether any individual has a legal or fundamental right to affect the body and mind of another person has been dealt with in detail by the Division Bench in Apparao's case and by the Supreme Court in the very appeal by the petitioner and there is no need to repeat them. Suffice it to say that religious faith existed and flourished in the past during several centuries in a better manner without the aid of amplifiers or other gadjets which have come into being only during the past few years. Belief in religion is and should remain a private and personal affair. When it crosses the four walls of the house or the place of worship and becomes a public issue, it is the singular most factor and root cause for all the violence, extremism, terrorism and strife we are now witnessing, national and international. The amplifiers probably signify the growing trend of intolerance between different groups. Religion is not a trade requiring advertisement by amplifiers. It is a pity that the police as well as the Pollution Control authorities are yet to strictly implement the rules and regulations in spite of repeated directions by the Court and the Government. There is no impediment to enforce them provided the enforcement is carried out impartially and uniformly. Marriage halls also have become noisy with music parties forcing the invitees to run away at the earliest. Music and melody which should be soothening, instead make the audience frightened and terror stricken. It is paradoxical to claim that we are becoming more and more civilised and at the same time we indulge in such acts which are most uncivilised. Even animals run away from noisy areas. Not only animals in forests but also in zoos are protected from noise pollution because they cannot survive in noisy atmosphere. Motorists passing through the forest and protected areas are warned against using the horn and the visitors to the zoo are directed to pass through silently. Why should we human beings reduce ourselves to less than animals, is the question which the petitioners and their counterparts in other religions should address themselves."
9.3. The Honourable Supreme Court in In Re: Noise Pollution reported in AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 3136, while holding that there is need for creating general awareness towards the hazardous effects of noise pollution, has elaborately dealt with the issue with regard to the implementation of the laws for restricting use of loudspeakers and high volume producing sound systems. In paragraphs 9 and 10, the Honourable Supreme Court elucidated the importance of Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India and observed as follows:
"9. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees life and personal liberty to all persons. It is well settled by repeated pronouncements of this Court as also the High Courts that right to life enshrined in Article 21 is not of mere survival or existence. It guarantees a right of persons to life with human dignity. Therein are included, all the aspects of life which go to make a person's life meaningful, complete and worth living. The human life has its charm and there is no reason why the life should not be enjoyed along with all permissible pleasures. Anyone who wishes to live in peace, comfort and quiet within his house has a right to prevent the noise as pollutant reaching him. No one can claim a right to create noise even in his own premises which would travel beyond his precincts and cause nuisance to neighbours or others. Any noise which has the effect of materially interfering with the ordinary comforts of life judged by the standard of a reasonable man is nuisance. How and when a nuisance created by noise becomes actionable has to be answered by reference to its degree and the surrounding circumstances, the place and the time.
10. Those who make noise often take shelter behind Article 19(1)A pleading freedom of speech and right to expression. Undoubtedly, the freedom of speech and right to expression are fundamental rights but the rights are not absolute. Nobody can claim a fundamental right to create noise by amplifying the sound of his speech with the help of loudspeakers. While one has a right to speech, others have a right to listen or decline to listen. Nobody can be compelled to listen and nobody can claim that he has a right to make his voice trespass into the ears or mind of others. Nobody can indulge into aural aggression. If anyone increases his volume of speech and that too with the assistance of artificial devices so as to compulsorily expose unwilling persons to hear a noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels then the person speaking is violating the right of others to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution-free life guaranteed by Article 21. Article 19(1) A cannot be pressed into service for defeating the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21. We need not further dwell on this aspect. Two decisions in this regard delivered by High Courts have been brought to our notice wherein the right to live in an atmosphere free from noise pollution has been upheld as the one guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. These decisions are Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal alias Bhagatji v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, AIR (2001) Delhi 455 (D.B.) and P.A. Jacob v. Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, AIR (1993) Kerala 1. We have carefully gone through the reasoning adopted in the two decisions and the principle of law laid down therein, in particular, the exposition of Article 21 of the Constitution. We find ourselves in entire agreement therewith." In paragraphs 11 to 20, the Honourable Supreme Court has analysed the term 'noise pollution' as under:
"11. The present cases provide an opportunity for examining several questions, such as what is noise? What are its adverse effects? Whether noise pollution runs in conflict with the fundamental rights of the people? And what relief can be allowed by way of directions issued in public interest?
I Noise what it is?
12. The word noise is derived from the Latin term "nausea". It has been defined as "unwanted sound, a potential hazard to health and communication dumped into the environment with regard to the adverse effect it may have on unwilling ears."
13. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound which pleases the listeners is music and that which causes pain and annoyance is noise. At times, what is music for some can be noise for others.
14. Section 2(a) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, includes noise in the definition of 'air pollutant'.
15. Section 2(a) "air pollutant" means any solid, liquid or gaseous substance including noise present in the atmosphere in such concentration as may be or tend to be injurious to human beings or other living creatures or plants or property or environment.
16. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica : "In acoustics noise is defined as any undesired sound."
17. According to Chambers 20th Century Dictionary , noise means Sound especially of loud, harsh or confused kind; a sound of any kind; an over loud or disturbing sound; frequent or public talk.
18. In Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, the definition of noise has undergone a change. Noise pollution stands carved out as a phrase separately from noise. The two are defined as under:
"Noise a sound; a harsh disagreeable sound, or such sound; a din. pollution an excessive or annoying degree of noise in a particular area, e.g. from traffic or aeroplane engines."
19. "Pollution" is a noun derived from the verb "pollute". Section 2(c) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 defines "environmental pollution" to mean the presence in the environment of any environmental pollutant. Section 2 (b) of the said Act defines "environmental pollutant" to mean any solid, liquid or gaseous substance present in such concentration as may be, or tends to be injurious to environment.
20. Thus, the disturbance produced in our environment by the undesirable sound of various kinds is called "noise pollution"." In paragraphs 89 to 101, the Honourable Supreme Court dealt with the statutory laws in India regarding the menace of 'Noise Pollution', as hereunder:
"VI. Statutory Laws in India
89. Not that the Legislature and the Executive in India are completely unmindful of the menace of noise pollution. Laws have been enacted and the Rules have been framed by the Executive for carrying on the purposes of the legislation. The real issue is with the implementation of the laws. What is needed is the will to implement the laws. It would be useful to have a brief resume of some of the laws which are already available on the Statute Book. Treatment of the problem of noise pollution can be dealt under the Law of Crimes and Civil Law. Civil law can be divided under two heads (i) The Law of Torts (ii) The General Civil Law. The cases regarding noise have not come before the law courts in large quantity. The reason behind this is that many people in India did not consider noise as a sort of pollution and they are not very much conscious about the evil consequences of noise pollution. The level of noise pollution is relative and depends upon a person and a particular place. The law will not take care of a super sensitive person but the standard is of an average and rational human being in the society.
The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
90. In order to curb the growing problem of noise pollution, the Government of India has enacted the Noise Pollution(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. Prior to the enactment of these rules noise pollution was not being dealt specifically by a particular Act.
"Whereas the increasing ambient noise levels in public places from various sources, inter-alia, industrial activity, construction activity, generator sets, loudspeakers, public address systems, music systems, vehicular horns and other mechanical devices, have deleterious effects on human health and the psychological well being of the people; it is considered necessary to regulate and control noise producing and generating sources with the objective of maintaining the ambient air quality standard in respect of noise;"
91. The main provisions of the noise rules are as under:
1. The State Government may categorize the areas into industrial, commercial, residential or silence areas/zones for the purpose of implementation of noise standards for different areas.
2. The ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones has been specified for in the Schedule annexed to the Rules.
3. The State Government shall take measures for abatement of noise including noise emanating from vehicular movements and ensure that the existing noise levels do not exceed the ambient air quality standards specified under these rules.
4. An area comprising not less than 100 meters around hospitals, educational institutions and courts may be declared as silence area/zone for the purpose of these rules.
5. A loudspeaker or a public address system shall not be used except after obtaining written permission from the authority and the same shall not be used at night i.e. between 10.00p.m. and 6.00 a.m.
6. A person found violating the provisions as to the maximum noise permissible in any particular area shall be liable to be punished for it as per the provisions of these rules and any other law in force.
Indian Penal Code
92. Noise pollution can be dealt under Sections 268, 290 and 291 of the Indian Penal Code, as a public nuisance. Under Section 268 of this Code, it is mentioned that 'A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.
93. A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.'
94. Sections 290 and 291 of the Indian Penal Code deal with the punishment for public nuisance.
Criminal Procedure Code
95. Under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the magistrate has the power to make conditional order requiring the person causing nuisance to remove such nuisance.
The Factories Act, 1948.
96. The Factories Act does not contain any specific provision for noise control. However, under the Third Schedule Sections 89 and 90 of the Act, 'noise induced hearing loss', is mentioned as a notifiable disease. Under section 89 of the Act, any medical practitioner who detects any notifiable disease, including noise- induced hearing loss, in a worker, has to report the case to the Chief Inspector of Factories, along with all other relevant information. Failure to do so is a punishable offence.
97. Similarly, under the Model Rules, limits for noise exposure for work zone area has been prescribed.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Rules framed thereunder
98. Rules 119 and 120 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, deal with reduction of noise.
Rule 119. Horns (1) On and after expiry of one year from the date of commencement of the Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1999, every motor vehicle including construction equipment vehicle and agricultural tractor manufactured shall be fitted with an electric horn or other devices conforming to the requirements of IS: 1884-1992, specified by the Bureau of Indian Standards for use by the driver of the vehicle and capable of giving audible and sufficient warning of the approach or position of the vehicle:
Provided that on and from 1st January, 2003, the horn installation shall be as per AIS-014 specifications, as may be amended from time to time, till such time as corresponding Bureau of Indian Standards specifications are notified.
(2) No motor vehicle shall be fitted with any multi-toned horn giving a succession of different notes or with any other sound-producing device giving an unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming noise.
Rule 120. Silencers (1) Every motor vehicle including agricultural tractor shall be fitted with a device (hereinafter referred to as a silencer) which by means of an expansion chamber or otherwise reduces as far as practicable, the noise that would otherwise be made by the escape of exhaust gages from the engine.
(2) Noise standards- Every motor vehicle shall be constructed and maintained so as to conform to noise standards specified in Part E of the Schedule VI to the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, when tested as per IS: 3028-1998, as amended from time to time.
Law of Torts
99. Quietness and freedom from noise are indispensable to the full and free enjoyment of a dwelling-house. No proprietor has an absolute right to create noises upon his own land, because any right which the law gives is qualified by the condition that it must not be exercised to the nuisance of his neighbours or of the public. Noise will create an actionable nuisance only if it materially interferes with the ordinary comfort of life, judged by ordinary, plain and simple notions, and having regard to the locality; the question being one of degree in each case.
The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
100. Noise was included in the definition of air pollutant in Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act in 1987. Thus, the provisions of the Air Act, became applicable in respect of noise pollution, also.
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
101. Although there is no specific provision to deal with noise pollution, the Act confers powers on Government of India to take measures to deal with various types of pollution including noise pollution.
Fireworks
102. The Explosives Act, 1884 regulates manufacture, possession, use, sale, transport, import & export of explosives. Firecrackers are governed by this Statute. Rule 87 of the Explosives Rule, 1983 prohibits manufacture of any explosive at any place, except in factory or premises licensed under the Rules.
103. In India there is no separate Act that regulates the manufacture, possession, use, sale, manufacture and transactions in firecrackers. All this is regulated by The Explosives Act, 1884. The Noise that is produced by these fireworks is regulated by the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000." In paragraphs 158 to 165, the Honourable Supreme Court while scrutinizing the ways and means to check/control noise pollution, has held as under:
"158. The need for checking noise pollution as highlighted by the petitioners and several intervenors deserves appreciation.
159. Need for specific legislation to control and prevent noise pollution still needs some emphasis. Undoubtedly, some laws have been enacted. Yet, compared with the legislation in developed countries India is still lagging behind in enacting adequate and scientific legislations. We need to have one simple but specific and detailed legislation dealing with several aspects referable to noise pollution and providing measures of control therefor.
160. There is an equal need of developing mechanism and infrastructure for enforcement of the prevalent laws. Those who are entrusted with the task of enforcing laws directed towards controlling noise pollution, must be so trained as to acquire expertise in the matter of fighting against noise pollution by taking preventing and deterrent measures both. They need to be equipped with the requisite equipments such as audio meters as would help them in detecting the level of noise pollution more so when it crosses the permissible limits and the source thereof.
161. Above all, there is need for creating general awareness towards the hazardous effects of noise pollution. Particularly, in our country the people generally lack consciousness of the ill effects which noise pollution creates and how the society including they themselves stand to benefit by preventing generation and emission of noise pollution. The target area should be educational institutions and more particularly schools. The young children of impressionable age should be motivated to desist from playing with firecrackers, use of high sound producing equipments and instruments on festivals, religious and social functions, family get- togethers and celebrations etc. which cause noise pollution. Suitable chapters can be added into text-books which teach civic sense to the children and teach them how to be good and responsible citizen which would include learning by heart of various fundamental duties and that would obviously include learning not to create noise pollution and to prevent if generated by others. Holding of special talks and lectures can be organized in the schools to highlight the menace of noise pollution and the role of the children in preventing it. For these purposes the State must play its role by the support and cooperation of non-government organizations (NGOs) can also be enlisted.
162. Similar awareness needs to be created in police and civil administration by means of carrying out a special drive to make them understand the various measures to curb the problems and the laws on the subject. Resident Welfare Associations (RAWs), service clubs (such as Rotary International and Lions International) and societies engaged in preventing noise pollution as part of their projects need to be encouraged and actively involved by the local administration. Festival and ceremonies wherein the fireworks and crackers are customarily burst can be accompanied by earmarking a place and time wherein and when all the people can come together and witness or view a show of fireworks dispensing with the need of crackers being burst in the residential areas and that too which is done without any regard to timings. The manufacturers can be encouraged to make such fireworks as would display more the colours rather than make noise.
163. Not only the use of loudspeakers and playing of hi-fi amplifier systems has to be regulated even the playing of high sound instruments like drums, tom-toms, trumpets, bugles and the like which create noise beyond tolerable limits need to be regulated. The law enforcing agencies must be equipped with necessary instruments and facilities out of which sound level meters conforming to Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) code are a bare necessity.
164. Preventive measures need to be directed more effectively at the source. To illustrate, the horns which if fitted with the automobiles would create hawking sound beyond permissible limits, should not be allowed to be manufactured or sold in the market as once they are available they are likely to be used.
165. Loudspeakers and amplifiers or other equipments or gadgets which produce offending noise once detected as violating the law, should be liable to be seized and confiscated by making provision in the law in that behalf."
In paragraph 168, it is held as follows:
"II. Loudspeakers
1. The noise level at the boundary of the public place, where loudspeaker or public address system or any other noise source is being used shall not exceed 10 dB(A) above the ambient noise standards for the area or 75 dB(A) whichever is lower.
2. No one shall beat a drum or tom-tom or blow a trumpet or beat or sound any instrument or use any sound amplifier at night (between 10. 00 p.m. and 6.a.m.) except in public emergencies.
3. The peripheral noise level of privately owned sound system shall not exceed by more than 5 dB(A) than the ambient air quality standard specified for the area in which it is used, at the boundary of the private place." In the very same decision, the Honourable Supreme Court also emphasised on the awareness over the Noise Pollution and observed thus:
"IV. Awareness
1. There is a need for creating general awareness towards the hazardous effects of noise pollution. Suitable chapters may be added in the text-books which teach civic sense to the children and youth at the initial/early level of education. Special talks and lectures be organised in the schools to highlight the menace of noise pollution and the role of the children and younger generation in preventing it. Police and civil administration should be trained to understand the various methods to curb the problem and also the laws on the subject.
2. The State must play an active role in this process. Resident Welfare Associations, service Clubs and Societies engaged in preventing noise pollution as a part of their projects need to be encouraged and actively involved by the local administration.
3. Special public awareness campaigns in anticipation of festivals, events and ceremonial occasions whereat firecrackers are likely to be used, need to be carried out."
10. Keeping in mind the dicta laid down in the aforesaid decisions by the Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court, I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.
11. Admittedly, the ninth respondent is the Parish Priest of Infant Jesus Shrine, R.K.Puram, Kattur, Tiruchirappalli - 620 019. It is the primordial submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the ninth respondent is using the cone speakers/loud speakers during prayers and thereby, causing noise pollution in that area and thus, the residents therein are made to undergo the untold menace. Hence, the petitioner made several complaints/representations to the authorities concerned for initiating appropriate action against the ninth respondent and to remove the loudspeakers therein. Finding no response, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.
12. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 10 has drawn the attention of this Court to the communication of the Village Administrative Officer, Ellakkudi, Agaram Village, Thiruverumbur Taluk, Trichy District, dated Nil, addressed to the seventh respondent, wherein it is informed that during the peace committee meeting held on 20.12.2017, the ninth respondent agreed to remove the cone speakers and also undertakes to conduct prayers in a peaceful manner without causing any noise pollution. Further, he has also drawn the attention of this Court to the letter of the ninth respondent, dated 20.12.2017 addressed to the sixth respondent in this regard.
13. The said statement made by the ninth respondent is recorded. Accordingly, the cone speakers installed by the ninth respondent have to be removed forthwith. It is to ensure that any box speakers used within the campus of the ninth respondent, shall not cause any disturbance to the residents therein, failing which, the same shall be seized and confiscated forthwith.
14. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
15. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind that the same problem is prevailing in all over the State as submitted by some of the lawyers in the open Court, this Court is inclined to issue certain directions/guidelines to regulate the noise pollution in public/other places and they are:
(i) The State shall strictly implement the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 forthwith and issue necessary/appropriate directions/guidelines to the authorities/police officers concerned to see to it that noise pollution is controlled;
(ii) The State shall instruct all the authorities to take appropriate action against the users of cone speakers/loudspeakers in public places and/or in religious places in violation of the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and ensure that the usage of cone speakers are curtailed and the usage of any other sound systems would be within the permitted parameters;
(iii) The use of cone speakers/loudspeakers in public places shall be banned/restricted forthwith in the interest of general public and more particularly, the children and aged persons;
(iv) The awareness campaigns shall be conducted among the public about the ill-effects of cone speakers/loudspeakers in order to curb the menace of noise pollution;
(v) Any violation in complying with the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, be taken note of by the authorities concerned and appropriate action be initiated against the persons concerned in accordance with law and the instruments used for such violation be seized and confiscated immediately;
(vi)Those, who are conducting the public meetings, shall also scrupulously follow the directions issued in this order, while using the sound systems; and
(vii)The tenth respondent shall communicate this order to all the District Collectors, who inturn, shall intimate the same to all the subordinate officers for compliance forthwith.
Post the matter for reporting compliance after three months.
To:
1.The Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy.
2.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.
3.The Commissioner, Trichy Municipal Corporation, Cantonment, Trichy.
4.The District Environment Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Trichy.
5.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.
6.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruverumbur Division, Trichy District - 14.
7.The Inspector of Police, Thiruverumbur Division, Trichy District.
8.The Local Planning Authority, Tiiruchirappalli Local Planning Authority, Trichy, Trichy District.
9.The Secretary to Government, Public Department, Fort St. George, Chennai ? 600 009.
10.The Secretary to Government, Public Department, Fort St. George, Chennai ? 600 009.
.