IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORIGINAL SIDE
REVEIW PETITION (LODGING) NO. 56 OF 2003
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 449 OF 2003
IN
WRIT PETITION (P.I.L) NO. 2053 OF 2003
State of Maharashtra & ors. …Petitioners
VERSES
Dr Yeshwant Triyambak Oke & others …Respondents
Mr G B Vahanvati, Advocate General with Mrs Armin Kalyanram, Assistant Government Pleader,
for the petitioners
Mr. Shyam Divan with Mr I.J.Nankani instructed by M/s Nankani & Associates for respondat nos. 1 to 4
CORAM : C.K.THAKKER. C.J. &P.C.:ABHAY S. OKA. J.
DATED : DECEMBER 19, 2003
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This review Petition is filed for the following reliefs:
“(a) The delay of 31 days in filing this Review Petition be condoned.
(b) The order dated 25th Sept. 2003 (Ex A hereto) be modified, and the Competent Authority may be given discretion that permissions for use of sound amplifier systems within Silence Zones as defined under the Rules be granted judiciously by the competent authority provided however that the use conforms with the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000.”
3. In our Order passed in Notice of Motion No 449 of 2003 in Writ Petition (PIL) No 2053 of 2000 on 25th September 2003, we had issued certain direction in paragraph 3. Direction (1) reads as under:
“Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, i.e. Writ Petition No 2053 of 2003, no loudspeaker permission be granted in respect of Silence Zone as defined and discussed in the Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules 2000 as amended from time to time.”
4. The learned Advocate General submitted that reading Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) with the Schedule thereto, it is clear that the Silence Zone which has been defined in Note to the Schedule would not include hospitals, educational institutions, courts, religious places or any other area which is declared as such by the competent authority, but the prohibition under Rule 6 would apply to the areas comprising not less than 100 metres around such institutions. (emphasis supplied).
5. It was also submitted that the paramount objective of the rule making authority is to save such institutions referred to in Note 3 of the Schedule. It was further submitted that the period/duration/timings of working hours of such institutions such as educational institutions, courts, religious places, etc. may also be fixed and it may be clarified that for the remaining period the provision of the Rule would not apply.
6. The learned counsel for the original petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the Rule is very clear and the phraseology lays down consequences of any violation of silence zone area. Construing reasonably the expression “Silence Zone” with clause (d) of Schedule which provides for ambient air quality standards in respect of noise, it is clear that the said standard will apply to such institutions. It also provides limits for day as well as night time. Regarding second submission, it was contended that period/duration of timings would be immaterial as the area is situated in a silence zone.
7. So far as first point is concerned, in our opinion, direction issued by us on September 25, 2003 is clear. Prima facie, it appears to us that the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules would apply to “an area comprising not less than hundred metres around” hospitals, educational institutions, courts, religious places or any other area which is declared as such by the competent authority. In our view, this would be in consonance with the phraseology used in clause (i) of Rule 6 which totally prohibits playing “any music” or using of “any sound amplifiers”. Had it been the intention of the Rule making authority that it would also apply to hospitals, educational institutions, courts, religious places, etc. the Rule making authority would nor have used the expression “an area comprising not less than 100 metres around hospitals, educational institutions, courts, religious places etc. Moreover, such interpretation would also permit activities within those institutions in accordance with law.
8. At the same time, however, the apprehension voiced by the learned counsel for the petitioners has also been taken care of. It cannot be considered that with regard to such organizations, institutions, etc. there is neither any standard nor limit whatsoever. In respect of such institutions also, the general provisions laid down in Rule 5 which place restriction on the use of loud speakers/public address system would apply.
9. In our opinion, therefore, the order passed by us is clarified as per the observations made hereinabove. All other questions are kept open. Review Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Parties be given copies of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar/Private Secretary.
CHIEF JUSTICE .
ABHAY S. OKA. J .