R. Vinodha vs Chairman And Ors

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as the respondents.

The applicant who is the Proprietrix of hardware store carrying on business at No.89, Pondy - Tindivanam Main Road, Thiruchitrambalam Cross Road, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District, has complained about the conduct of the 4th respondent who is carrying on flour mill and chilly grinding activity having grinding mill at No.88, Pondy - Tindivanam Cross Road which is adjacent to the applicant's building. The complaint is that the 4th respondent, during the course of his business activity, is in the habit of drying the chilly powder infront of the applicant's shop, thereby not only causing nuisance but also health hazard to the people living in the said area. Therefore, she has prayed for a suitable direction to be issued to the official respondents 1 to 3 to stop the activity and close down the flour mill and chilly grinding machine shop.

The 1st respondent - Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (Board) has filed reply. It is stated that the 4th respondent unit has obtained permission from the Department of Industries and Commerce to install the following machineries:

1.Flour mill & Chilly grinder   .. 1 no.

Soapnut powder machine    .. 1 no.

Wet grinder                          .. 2 nos.

Electric motor (10 HP)         .. 1 no.

Electric motor (2HP)            .. 1 no

The 4th respondent unit has also obtained permission from the Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and plan approval from the Panchayat Union. It is further stated that the applicant's shop is situated adjacent to the 4th respondent's mill. The 1st respondent - Board is stated to have addressed a communication on 25.1.2017 directing the 4th respondent to take all suitable measures to avoid noise and dust pollution to the neighbours and not to dry any grinded powder in front of the applicant's shop.

It is the case of the 4th respondent that the 1st respondent's officials have carried out an inspection of the flour and chilly powder grinding mill on 20.1.2017 and informed the 4th respondent that there should not be any kind of dust or noise pollution even though at the time of inspection there was no such health hazard. There was another surprise inspection conducted by the 1st respondent on 25.1.2017. It is the case of the 4th respondent that the allegations made against the 4th respondent by the applicant are false.

Mr. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that even though it is a small industrial activity which is essentially required for the people especially in the residential area, there must be some guidelines for the purpose of regulation of the activity, in order to avoid not only public nuisance but also any environmental hazard being caused which may consequently affect the public health.

The 3rd respondent - Block Development Officer in his reply, has also stated that the 4th respondent has not committed any breach of the conditions based on which license or permission has been granted and in fact the applicant herself is in the habit of not paying Property Tax and Professional Tax.

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 there are sufficient powers vested with the Board for the purpose of framing guidelines, is in our considered view, not based on facts. It is true that Item 69 of the Schedule I of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 deals with the emission and effluent standards of Grain processing, Flour mills, Paddy processing, Pulse making or Grinding mills. However, while speaking about the capacity, the Rule specifically makes it clear that the capacity must be 1 to 3 Tonnes per hour and only in those circumstances the Board will have any supervisory power for the purpose of issuing guidelines. However it remains a fact that the Board, being an authority for the purpose of regulating pollution in any manner, has got supervisory power which includes consent power throughout the area in which the industry is situated.

The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would submit that the 4th respondent is not drying chilly powder infront of the applicant's shop. The above statement is recorded. We make it clear that the 4th respondent shall not dry any flour or chilly powder or any other material infront of the shop of the applicant. In the event of such activity being done by the 4th respondent, it is always open to the applicant to give necessary complaint to the Board and also initiate action under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the abatement of nuisance. In addition to that we direct the concerned authority to make periodical supervision to see that such nuisance is not created only in respect of the business carried on by the 4th respondent but also similar business activities carried on by any person in Villupuram District.

In so far as it relates to the noise pollution which is stated to have been caused by the activity of the 4th respondent, sufficient measures have already been taken by prescribing noise standard to be maintained by the 4th respondent. In the event of any breach by the 4th respondent and if any complaint is made, it is for the police officer authorised under the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000 to take proper steps.

With the above directions, the application is disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost.