AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an application filed by the applicant, a resident of Parancharvali Village, Kangeyam Taluk seeking a direction to the 1st respondent, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (Board) to consider the applicant's representation dated 23.8.2012. The case of the applicant in short is that the 4th respondent after purchasing a piece of land in S.F. No.792/1 in Parancharvali Village at Kangeyam Taluk commenced an industry in the name and style of SRP Engineering Industries in about 5 cents of land therein to carry on the repair of crusher machinery. After commencement, gradually the Unit Continued to function throughout the day, thereby causing heavy noise and emanating flashy light which affect people's eye sight and also cause other health hazards. The residents who could not reside peacefully made complaints to all the authorities but no action was taken. A suit was filed before the District Munsif Court , Kangeyam in O.S. No.226 of 2006 seeking permanent injunction which was decreed in the month of March 2012. But no appeal was preferred there from. Despite the decree, the 4th respondent has been carrying on the Unit. Hence as a final resort, the applicant made a representation to the respondents on 23rd August, 2012 to stop the illegal activities of the 4th respondent. But no action was taken. Under the circumstances, there arose a necessity to approach the Tribunal.
All the respondents entered appearance and put forth their respective reply.
Pending the proceedings, a direction was issued to the 1st respondent, Board to make an inspection of the Unit of the 4th respondent and file a report. Accordingly an inspection was made on 16.12.2013 and the report submitted by the Board speaks about the ambient noise level survey which reads as follows:-
Sl.
Location
where
Ambient
Direction
Distance from
Background
Actual
No.
Noise
Level
Survey
from
the
Outer
Noise
Noise
conducted
source
wall of the 4th
Level
Level
respondent
In
In
Unit in mt.
dB "A"
dB
Leq
"A"
Leq
01
At
the
bedroom
of
the
North East
4
39.7
44.5
Applicant
house
at
D.No.14/69,
Naal
Road,
Paranjervazhi
P.O.,
Kankeyam
02
At
the
bedroom
of
the
North East
4
42.0
47.8
house of
Mr. Manoharan
(complaint
party's
tenant)
14/69,
Naal
Road,
Paranjervazhi
P.O.,
Kangeyam
03
At the porch of Mr.
East
65
54.8
55.1
Subramanian's new house
on the main road (opposite
side of the complaint unit)
at
Naal
Road,
Paranjervazhi
P.O.,
Kangeyam
04
At the house
premises of
South
50
44.8
53.6
Thriu
Thangamuthu,
Door
No.14/108
at
Naal
Road,
Paranjervazhi
P.O.,
Kangeyam
(right side of
the complaint unit)
05
At the vacant agri.lands of
West
50
46.6
52.8
Thiru K. Sivasubramaniam
(back side
of the complaint
Unit)
at
Naal
Road,
Paranjervazhi
P.O.,
Kangeyam
06
In front of
the house of
North
45
49.9
52.2
Poonduraiyur
@
Thiru
Karuppusamy
(Left side of
the Complaint Unit) at Naal
Road,
Paranjervazhi
P.O.,
Kankeyam
It is submitted that the above noise level recorded in 6 points are within the residential area norms of 55 dB(A) Leq. "
This day the matter is posted for submission by the counsel for both sides and their submissions are heard and considered along with all the materials available.
The counsel for the applicant would submit that though the noise levels as shown on analysis after the ambient noise levels survey are within the prescribed limit, the Unit even as per the Revenue Records is located in the residential area. If so, necessary Consent for Establishment of the Unit should have been obtained from the Board. But admittedly the Unit has not done so. Hence, the functioning of the Unit has got to be stayed. Pointing to the report, it is contended by the counsel for the Board, that the ambient noise level is found to be within the prescribed limit.
Though the Unit has satisfied the ambient noise level criteria as could be seen from the report made available by the Board on inspection, the Tribunal is of the view that the reported values alone cannot be taken as criteria for allowing the Unit to carry on its operation. Admittedly, the Unit is situate in a residential area and if so, necessary application should have been made before the Board and Consent for Establishment and Consent for Operation issued by the Board become necessary. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal has no hesitation to stop the 4th respondent Unit to carry on its operation. At this juncture, the counsel for the 4th respondent would submit that necessary application would be made before the Board for getting necessary Consent. On the request made by the counsel, the Tribunal feels it fit that the liberty can be granted to the applicant to make necessary application therefor. The appraisement of the facts and circumstances would warrant for injuncting the 4th respondent Unit from carrying on its operation till the Consent for Establishment and Consent for Operatio are obtained from the 1st respondent Board as required by law. If and when the application for Consent to Establish and Operate are made by the 4th respondent, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the application and pass suitable orders thereon as required by law within a period of two months therefrom. With the above observation and direction, the application is disposed of.
No cost.