SENIOR CITIZENS WELFARE ASSOCI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation seeks direction to respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to stop noise pollution caused by respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 and incidental reliefs particularly that public buses, school buses, tractor etc. should not voice high pitch electric horns.

(2.) NOISE Pollution is defined in Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986. Its sources are diverse some of being through road traffic, industry etc. It is not necessary to go into various points raised in the writ petition as we find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Noise Pollution -Implementation of the Laws for restricting use of Loudspeakers and high volume producing sound systems V/s. Union of India & Anr., 2005 4 PLJR 14. 1 From 8/4/2014the Paperusal ge 151 of the aforesaid decision, it is seen that the Supreme Court with respect to Loudspeakers and Vehicular Noise issued following directions: - "//. Loudspeakers". - 1. The noise level at the boundary of the public place, where loudspeaker or public address system or any other noise sources being used shall not exceed 10db( A) above the ambient noise standards for the area or 75db(A) whichever is lower. 2. No one shall beat a drum or tomtom 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 5db (A) than the ambient air quality standard specified for the area in which it is used, at the boundary of the private place. III Vehicular Noise. -No horn should be allowed to be used at night (between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.) in residential area except in exceptional circumstances." Needless to say that the District Magistrate of the concerned place as well as other functionaries of the State and the Pollution Control Board are bound by the said direction. As a matter of fact, counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 stating therein that they are abiding by the direction issued by the Supreme Court from time to time and they have been complying the statutory provisions contained in Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986.

(3.) NEEDLESS to say that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the afore -referred decision have to be scrupulously followed by ail concerned including the District Magistrates of the all districts. If there is any specific violation brougnt to the notice of the said authority, it needs no emphasis that appropriate action provided in law shall be taken against the offending party/parties.