Nayan Behari Das vs State of Orissa and Others

P.C. Naik, J.—The petitioner, a practising advocate of this Court has filed this petition for issuance of an appropriate writ direction or order commanding the opposite parties 2 and 3 to adopt strict measures for restraining use of multitoned horns and other such devices giving an unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming noise, by vehicles, in particular, goods vehicles and passenger buses, as such sound devices are creating immense inconvenience to the public at large.

It is the case of the petitioner that he has got his office-cum-residence situated near the Link Road, a busy area through which private buses and other transport vehicles are plying practically throughout the day and night. On either side of the Link Road, near the Badambadi Square, the O.S.R.T.C. bus-stop and the bus-stop for use of the private bus operators are situated. However, many buses are parked on the side of the road over a long period and more often than not, the engines are kept running and there is indiscriminate use of multitoned horns and other similar devices creating unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming noise. This carries on practically from early morning till well passed midnight. According to the petitioner, the constant use of multitoned horns creating unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming sounds is causing lot of inconvenience to the residents and is leading to sound pollution. Accordingly, he has been compelled to approach this Court for issuance of appropriate direction.

Though notice was issued to all the opposite parties, only opposite parties 2 and 3 (i.e. the Commissioner, State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority have chosen to file a counter. These opposite parties while admitting that the use of multitoned horns and other devices producing unduly harsh, shrill, alarming or loud noise, has been prohibited, state that appropriate action is being taken against those who are committing a breach of this provision. In the additional counter filed subsequently, these opposite parties have stated that a total of 1451 vehicle Checking Reports have been drawn up during the period from 15.6.1995 to 9.9.1996 against the vehicles using multitoned horns and similar devices and in many cases these horns were removed. It is further stated that strict steps are being taken, and that, the department shall continue its drive against the use of multitoned horns and other similar devices that are used in breach of the Rules.

Rule-119 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 reads thus :

"119. Horns - (1) Every motor vehicle shall be fitted with an electric horn or other device (conforming to the specifications of the Bureau of Indian Standards) for use by the driver of the vehicle and capable of giving audible and sufficient warning of approach or position of the vehicle.

(2) No motor vehicle shall be fitted with any multitoned horn giving a succession of different notes or with any other sound-producing device giving an unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming noise.

(3) Nothing contained in Sub-rule (2) shall prevent the use on vehicle used as ambulance or the fire fighting or slavage purpose or on vehicles used by police officer of officers of Motor Vehicles Department in the course of their duties of such sound signals as may be approved by the registering authority in whose jurisdiction such vehicles are kept."

Thus, the use of multitoned horns of similar devices giving unduly harsh, shrill, loud and alarming sounds is not permissible but, it is seen that scant regard is being paid to those provisions by the operators of passenger vehicles and goods vehicles in general, and by the owners of motorcars surprisingly even two wheelers, who think it quite fashionable to use peculiar and loud sound producing devices as horns. Surprisingly, in spite of the Rule prohibiting its use, the use of multitoned horns and other similar devices are on the increase, and as such, drastic steps are required to be taken by the appropriate authorities for strict enforcement of these provisions. No doubt, as stated by the opposite parties 2 and 3, action is being taken against the offenders, but that does not seem to be sufficient, because more and more different varieties of peculiar sound producing devices/horns are corning in vogue. May be this is so, because though there is prohibition for use of these device/ horns, there is no prohibition on its manufacture, so that one can go on manufacturing such devices with the impunity. May be the fact that the penalty provided is not stringent, a person is not bothered about the prohibition. If a bar were to be put on the manufacturer under threat of prosecution and if the penalty provided is some-what heavy, probably, the manufacture and consequently the use of these types of horns may come to an end. But, unless sum stringent measure are prescribed, there seeks no escape from the production and the consequent use of such multitoned horns and other unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming sound producing devices. As generally, multitoned horns and other such devices, more or less similar in nature, are more in use by the operators of goods vehicles and passenger buses. If prohibiting the use of such horns could be incorporated as a condition or permits, it would, to a great extent, curtail the user thereof. It is, however, clear that the prohibition thereof by the Rules has not deterred many bus operators and transporters, from using such sound producing devices.

It cannot be denied that constant use of such devices producing unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming noise is bound to cause disturbances and distraction to the students who are not able to concentrate fully due to irritation caused by such devices. It is also causing adverse effect on infants, sick and elderly persons and is generally causing inconvenience, as persons like the petitioner are not able to concentrate on their work because of constant sound pollution. Thus, it is an addition to the already existing sound pollution and appropriate steps are required to be taken for controlling the same. But, as the use of such type of horns is not permitted by the Rules, the question of issuing any direction prohibiting such was does not arise. However, we consider it to be a fit case in which some directions need to be issued. Accordingly, we feel that it would be appropriate, if at regular intervals announcement is made through the medium of All India Radio and Doordarshan and the Press that the use Of multitoned horns or such other devices creating unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming noise is prohibited. It will be advisable if notices are exhibited at the bus stops, and at the R.T.O. Office regarding the prohibition on the use of multitioned horns and similar devices. The authorities may also consider printing of a warning or affixing of a rubber stamp on all application forms required for fitness certificates, permits and in the registration books, that the use of multitoned horns and other similar devices creating unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming sounds is prohibited under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. But, all this would not be sufficient unless follow up action is taken by the appropriate authorities against those committing the breach.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Chief Secretary, Orissa, Secretary, Transport and Commerce Department, Govt. of Orissa and Commissioner of Transport for taking appropriate follow up action in the light of our order.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

P.K. Mohanty, J.

I agree.