IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JUIRISDICTION
 

WRIT PETITION NO. 2053 OF 2003

 

Dr. Yeshwant Trimbak Oke  & ors.                                      …Petitioners

            Versus

Union of India & others                                                       …Respondents
 

Mr. Shyam, Divan i/by M/s Nankani Associates for petitioners

Mr. S.B. Jaisinghani, Addl. Solicitor General with Ms. Jyoti Pawar, Addl. G.P. for Union of India

Ms. Gautambala Gautam for respondent No. 4
 
 

CORAM  : C.K.THAKKER. C.J.  &             

                 S.J. VAZIFDAR. J.                    

DATED    : AUGUST 27, 2003                   

            P.C.:

 
                     Rule.
 
 

2.        Mr. S.B.Jaisinghani, Addl Solicitor General waives service of notice of rule on behalf of Union of India. Ms. Gautambala Gautam waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No 4.

3.        We have heard parties on interim relief. On behalf of the contesting respondents, two preliminary objections have been raised. Firstly, it is contended that the petition is not maintainable as it is instituted merely on the basis of apprehension. It was submitted that if there is a statutory duty on the respondents and there is a failure to take action by them, a writ of mandamus can be sought. In the instant case, however, no such situation has arisen. The petition is, therefore, premature and deserves to be dismissed at this stage. Secondly, it was contended that there is delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this court. The notification was issued as early as on April 7, 2003, but the petition is filed on August 20, 2003, and copy is served on the contesting respondents either on 26th/on 27th.

4.        In our opinion, it would be appropriate if we keep open all the contentions. Let all questions be decided at the time of final hearing.

5.        On interim stay, we may only state that the respondent-authorities will take into account the provisions of the Environment Protection Act as well as Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, particularly rules 3,4,5 and 6 as amended from time to time read with the Schedule thereof. The authorities will also ensure compliance with the notification dated April 7, 2003, wherein it was mentioned that “Loudspeakers and public address systems’ use will be permitted upto 12 midnight instead of upto 10 p.m. keeping the ambient air quality standards for noise within prescribed limits, for a period of 15 designated day in a year, in addition to closed premises like auditoria, conference halls, public halls and banquet halls” as mentioned in the Government Resolution.

6.        The Commissioner of Police is directed to publish notice in the newspapers that nobody will be permitted to use Loudspeakers other than as provided in the notification dated April 7, 2003. He will also ensure that even during the permissible period upto 10 p.m. or 12 midnight, as the case may be, the Loudspeakers would be tuned as a reasonably low decibel.

7.        Affidavits to be filed within eight weeks. Affidavit in rejoinder within six weeks thereafter.
 

 

CHIEF JUSTICE                          .
 
 

S.J.VAZIFDAR. J                          .