Shri R. Balan vs District Collector And Ors

1) The case of the applicant, in short, is that the applicant is a native of Begepalli, residing at Door No. 1/380 Ezil Nagar which is classified as residential area. The 5th respondent is owning a plot in No. 25 in Ezil Nagar is carrying on an industry in the name and style of "Sandhya Engineering Works" where he is carrying on fabrication works wherein 25 persons are employed. The said unit is carrying on fabrication of irons, i.e., iron windows, iron doors and supplying the same to other companies. It is functioning round the clock. It is a residential area.

Because of the noise pollution, the people of the said Ezil Nagar could not sleep peacefully and even the children of the said Ezil Nagar are also affected. A detailed representation was made to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, complaining of the same, but it went to the deaf ears. In view of the in-action on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, there arose a necessity for approaching this Tribunal by making this application.

2) On appearance, all the respondents filed their respective replies. The 5th respondent has flatly denied all allegations made by the applicant. In order to ascertain the facts of the situation, a direction was issued to the District Environmental Engineer concerned to make an inspection of the noise level. Pursuant to the inspection made by the District Environmental Engineer on 30.07.2013, a report was filed and a perusal of which indicated that the noise level has exceeded to some extent. When a query was raised, the counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that totally 6 machines were available and in order to bring the noise level within the permissible limits, the 5th respondent was ready to remove one or two machines as instructed by the authorities. Following the same, another inspection was made by the District Environmental Engineer concerned and necessary instructions were given to the 5th respondent for removal of two machines out of the 6 which was carried out by the 5th respondent. After making another inspection, the 2nd respondent filed a report stating that the noise level was within the permissible limits.

3) At this juncture, it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the counsel appearing for the applicant that the renewal application for consent was pending in the hands of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. Now the renewal has been made. A copy of the consent to operate for a period of 2 years commencing from March 2014 was also filed before the Tribunal. A perusal of it would indicate that necessary and reasonable conditions are attached to in the order of consent to operate and hence under the circumstances, the Tribunal is unable to notice anything further for the applicant to pursue in the grievances originally ventilated in his application. Hence there cannot be any impediment for the 5th respondent to carry on operation of his unit within the noise level as permitted by the officers of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and found in the last report dated 04.12.2013.

4) However, the authorities of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board are directed to monitor the noise level in future. With the above direction, the application is disposed of.

No cost.