CHIKKARANGAPPA Vs. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-Kamataka State Pollution Control Board has directed the closure of an industrial unit established in a residential locality of Nelamangala town on the ground that the same violates the permissible noise levels for residential areas. The petitioners have in the present petition assailed the said direction on several grounds, to which i shall advert after briefly setting out the facts in the backdrop whereof the challenge is mounted.

(2.) THE petitioners are husband and wife. They own a residential premises situated within the town municipal limits of Nelamangala. They appear to have secured from the Municipal Council a licence to install power-looms in the said premises, which they have been operating for the past nearly ten years. On receipt of a complaint from the residents of the area that the operation of the power-looms causes noise pollution and results in inconvenience and discomfort to the residents, the Assistant Environmental Officer, Tumkur appears to have conducted an inspection on 24-6-2000. The inspection revealed that noise levels emanating from the power-looms were in excess of the standards stipulated for the residential areas. A show-cause notice was accordingly issued to the petitioners by the Environmental Officer calling upon them to explain as to why action should not be initiated under the provisions of law. The reply submitted by the petitioners through their Counsel inter alia pointed out that the petitioners had taken precautions to reduce the noise levels by fixing irremovable glass shutters for the windows and by providing metal shutters for the doors. It also pointed out that the height of the compound wall had also been raised from six feet to about eleven feet. This was according to the reply sufficient to ensure that no noise pollution whatsoever is caused by the operation of the power-looms. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Board decided to hear the matter and offered to the petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing to be held on 9-1-2001 in terms of its letter dated 4-1-2001. The petitioners did attend the hearing on the date fixed but complained about the manner in which the entire matter was dealt with. In a communication addressed by the petitioners through their Counsel to the board, the attitude of the Authority dealing with the matter was described as 'authoritative' and his style of functioning as 'autocratic'. The communication also demanded a further hearing to the petitioners through their Counsel. A Vakalathnama was also enclosed with the same. The Board eventually passed an order dated 9-2-2001 in which it granted six months time to the petitioners to shift the power-looms failing which action in accordance with law was threatened. The petitioners have called in question the validity of the said order in the present writ petition as already indicated earlier.

(3.) DURING the pendency of these proceedings, the unit was inspected once again by the Deputy Environmental Officer of the Board on 11th of october, 2001 after notice to the petitioners. The inspection revealed that the noise level readings at the complainants' house were much higher than the maximum prescribed for the residential area even when out of the four power-looms installed by the petitioners, only one was operational. Based on the inspection and the recording of the levels, Deputy Environmental officer has submitted a report to the Board, a copy whereof has together with the measurements taken during the inspection been produced by learned Counsel for the respondents along with a memo.