Mrs. Shanthakumari vs Member Secretary And Ors

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mrs. Rita Chandrasekar, the learned counsel who take notice for respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

The application is filed under Section 14 of the National Green Act (NGT) Act, 2010 for an order directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 not to permit respondent No.6 to operate the Power Loom at AK Palaniyappa Street, 2nd cross lane, Thavittupalayam, Andhiyur Taluk, Erode District.

The case of the applicant is that respondent No.6 is operating a Power Loom next to his residential house and it is being operated 24 hours causing noise nuisance. The allegation if that the area where residence of the applicant as well as the power loom is being operated is classified as residential area and categorized as Residential Class I Type-I and the noise being created is of high decimal exceeding the prescribed parameters and therefore the respondent No.6 is to be restrained from operating the Power Loom.

On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and going through the application, we find that the application will not come under Section 14 of NGT Act, 2010. Section 14 provides that the Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. Therefore, the question is whether a substantial question relating to environment, including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment, arises on the pleadings. Section 2 (1) (m) defines " substantial question relating to environment" as follows:

" 2 (1) (m) substantial question relating to environment shall include an instance where,-

(i) there is a direct violation of a specific statutory environmental obligation by a person by which, (A) the community at large other than an individual or group of individuals is affected or likely to be affected by the environmental consequences; or (B) the gravity of damage to the environment or property is substantial; or (C) the damage to public health is broadly measureable;

(ii) the environmental consequences relate to a specific activity or a point source of pollution. "

We find that the only relevant allegation in the application is with regard to the nuisance being caused to the family of the applicant and his neighbours: Even if it is a direct violation of a statutory obligation of Respondent No.6, it will not attract the substantial question relating to environment as defined under Section 2 (1) (m).

Moreover even otherwise the case of the applicant is that respondent No.6 by operating the Power Loom is creating noise more than the permissible limit for the residentiall area. The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, under rule 7 provides for complaints to be made to the Authority.

Rule 7 reads as follows:

" 7. Complaints to be made to the authority:- (1) A person may, if the noise level exceeds the ambient noise standards by 10 dB (A) or more given in the corresponding columns against any area/ zone (or, if there is a violation of any provision of these rules regarding restrictions imposed during night time), make a complaint to the authority. "

The Authority is defined under Rule 2(c) as follows:

" 2(c) " authority" means and includes any authority or officer authorized by the Central Government, or as the case may be, the State Government in accordance with the laws in force and includes a District Magistrate, Police Commissioner, or any other officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police designated for the maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise under any law for the time being in force. "

Rule 8 provides the powers of the Authority to pass necessary directions. Rule 8 reads as follows:

" 8. Power to prohibit etc., continuance of music sound or notice:-

(1) If the authority is satisfied from the report of an officer in charge of a police station or other information received by him (including from the complainant) that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent annoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury or risk of annoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury to the public or to any person who dwell or occupy property on the vicinity, he may, by a written order issue such directions as he may consider necessary to any person for preventing, prohibiting, controlling or regulating:-

(a) the incidence or continuance in or upon any premises of-

(i) any vocal or instrumental music,

(ii) sounds caused by playing, beating, clashing, blowing or use in any manner whatsoever of any instrument including loudspeakers, (public address systems, horn, construction equipment, appliance or apparatus) or contrivance which is capable of producing or re-producing sound, or

(iii) Sound caused by bursting of sound emitting fire crackers, or,

(b) the carrying on in or upon, any premises of any trade, avocation or operation or process resulting in or attended with noise.

(2) The authority empowered under sub-rule (1) may, either on its own motion, or on the application of any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-rule (1), either rescind, modify or alter any such order:

Provided that before any such application is disposed of, the said authority shall afford to the applicant (and to the original complainant, as the case may be), an opportunity of appearing before it either in person or by a person representing him and showing cause against the order and shall, if it rejects any such application either wholly or in part, record its reasons for such rejection."

The applicant should have approached the authority for redressal of the grievance. Applicant is not entitled to approach the Tribunal, when there is an effective statutory remedy provided under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, before exhausting the said remedy.

The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.