LAWS(MPH)-2001-3-32

SAYEED MAQSOOD ALI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On March 19, 2001
SAYEED MAQSOOD ALI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Life is a glorious gift from God. It is the perfection of nature, a master-piece of creation. It is majestic and sublime. Human being is the epitome of the infinite prowess of the divine designer. Great achievements and accomplishments in life are possible if one is permitted to lead an acceptably healthy life. It has been said "life is action, the use of one's powers" and powers one can use if he has real faith in life. The term 'life' as employed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India does never mean a basic animal existence but conveys living of life with utmost nobleness and human dignity-dignity which is an ideal worth fighting for and worth dying for. Life takes within its fold "some of the finer graces of human civilization which makes life worthliving". Right to live in its ambit includes right to health and health gives a serene and halcyon signification to life. It has been said that preservation of health is a duty and as per Herbert Spencer, "few seems conscious that there is such a thing as physical morality". While speaking about health thus spoke Izaak Walton ...... "for health is the second blessing that we mortals are capable of; a blessing that money cannot buy". Reverence for life is a fundamental principle of morality and a life without good health is denial of life. The human body is regarded as the house of creative intelligence. The health of an individual enhances the quality of the collective and in a welfare state it is the bounden obligation of the State to see that people remain in a healthy society. It is to be borne in mind that even in the international sphere emphasis is laid on proper health and a right is enshrined providing security against sickness and disablement under Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have adverted to health and life as in the case at hand this Court is concerned with noise pollution which causes many a serious disorders and creates a dent in the fabric of Society. C.S. Kerse in his book 'The Law Relating to noise' has categorically stated that noise is undoubtedly psychologically and physiologically harmgul as an invisible and insidious form and once hearing has been damaged by noise it can scarely ever be restored to wholeness. The learned author has also proceeded to state that noise causes loss of sleep, annoyance, nervous tension, heart disease, migraine and gastro intestinal disorders. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K. R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association AIR 2000 SC 2773 expressed thus (Para 3):

(2.) The facts as have been undraped in the present writ petition are that the house of the petitioner is situate near Dr. Batalia Eye Hospital and by the side of Sindhi Dharamshala, Ghantaghar, Jabalpur. In the vicinity there are hospitals and educational institutions such as Siraj Ahmed Memorial Hospital, Dr. Batalia's Eye Hopital and Government Higher Secondary School. The Sindhi Dharamshala which is situate nearby accommodates various categories of people and many a religious function is held throughout the year. The Dharamshala also is given on rent for the purpose of holding marriages and other functions.In the Dharamshala loud-speakers are utilized where music is played at a very high pitch creating disturbance to the petitioner and other persons residing in the said locality. It is pleaded in the petition that due to the act of respondent No.7 there is noise Pollution and the petitioner's health is affected and though he has submitted various complaints and approached the authorities for stopping the said nuisance it has fallen in deaf ears. It has been setforth that S. 30 of the Police Act, 1861 confers powers on the authorities to take appropriate action against such persons who are responsible for noise pollution but no steps have been taken. The sphinx like silence has crumbled his hortative hopes in the administration. With these averments the prayers have been made as have been indicated hereinabove.

(3.) A preliminary reply has been filed by the respondents 2, 4 and 5 namely the State of M.P., M.P. State Pollution Board and the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, contending, inter alia, that the District Magistrate, Jabalpur has issued an order on 24-1-2000 as contained in Annexure R.1 restraining /prohibiting the use of public address system etc. under the provisions of the M.P. Noise Control Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1985 Act') and, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is mitigated.