# Sushil Chandra Srivastava And Anr v. State of U.P. And Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 1174
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-20
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 1216 of 2019
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Panakaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sushil-chandra-srivastava-and-anr-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-44430
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

C.S.C. Sri Devi Prasad Mishra

A.
Noise
Pollution
(Regulation
and
Control) Rules, 2000-Rule 5, 6, 7 and 8are
mandatory.
Noise
Pollution
(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000-
Rule 3(2)- cast an obligation on state
government
to
categorize
area
in
industrial, commercial, residential and
silence zone. Directions issued. (Para 27)

The Rule also enjoins the State Government to
take steps for abatement of noise including
noise emanating from vehicular movements,
blowing of horns, bursting of sound emitting
firecrackers, use of loud speakers or public
address
system
and
sound
producing
instruments and ensure that the existing noise
levels do not exceed the ambient air quality
standards specified under these rules. An area
comprising not less than 100 meters from
hospitals, educational institutions and courts
may be declared as silence area/zone for the
purpose of these rules. (Para 28)

B.
Noise
Pollution
(Regulation
and
Control) Rules, 2000-Rule 7-The use of
word 'shall" make it imperative that duty
is cast on the authority to act on the
complaint immediately. (Para30)

The Rule 8 requires furnishing opportunity of
hearing to the wrong doer. But no such
requirement is necessary under the Rule 7.
One of the objects of Rule 7 seems to stop the
sound emitting equipment immediately and
not to insist to follow long drawn procedure to
file a written complaint and to give opportunity
to offender. Since noise pollution affects
human health, it needs to be stopped
immediately. (Para 31) (E-9)

## Text

_Characters 0–39,966 of 70,091. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39966 for what follows._

1174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
notice of the various dates fixed during
the inquiry, that led to findings about one
passenger being carried by him without
ticket, out of a total of 16. The other
charges that emanate from allegations of
Wakeel Ahmad, Traffic Inspector, that he
was assaulted and abused, also for the
same reason, cannot be judged on merits
till it is proved that workman was indeed
served with notice of the date, time and
place of inquiry, as claimed by the
Employers.

15. This Court does not for the
moment hold that indeed the entire
inquiry was held ex-parte, but thinks that
on the state of evidence on record, the
Labour Court must look into the evidence
of Taukheer Habib, and carefully examine
the office copies of notices claimed to be
served upon the workman, relating to
various dates fixed in the inquiry before
returning a well informed finding on the
said issue. Two propositions are too well
settled to brook any doubt. One is about
the time tested principle that an inquiry
held without notice to the delinquent
workman is a nullity, and all proceedings
based on such an inquiry would collapse.
The second is that a finding recorded by
any
Court,
Tribunal
or
Authority,
ignoring
material
evidence
from
consideration,
or
drawing
perverse
conclusions from evidence, can never be
sustained.

16. In this view of the matter, this
Court at this stage does not propose to go
into the other points raised by the
petitioner, assailing the findings of the
Labour Court, but considers it appropriate
to remit the matter to the Labour Court to
determine afresh the issue in clear and
categorical terms, after consideration of
relevant evidence on record, whether the
workman was indeed served with notices
of inquiry issued by the Employers
regarding the date, time and venue. In this
regard, the evidence of the employers
witness, Taukheer Habib will also be
taken into consideration, besides whatever
relevant evidence is there on record. The
other findings recorded by the Labour
Court would have little meaning or legal
force, unless it is determined that the
inquiry was indeed held, after due notice
to the workman of the various dates fixed.
Thus the findings of the Labour Court on
other issues cannot be sustained, where
the fundamental issue whether the inquiry
at which these findings on the various
charges have been recorded, was held
after due and valid notice to the petitioner
is required to be determined afresh in
accordance with law.

17. In the result the writ petition is
allowed in part. The award passed by the
Labour Court is set aside, with a remit of
the matter to the Labour Court concerned,
which shall pass an award afresh in
accordance with law, bearing in mind the
directions in this judgment; all to be done
within a period of four months next from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order. Costs easy.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.08.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
THE HON'BLE PANAKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-C No. 1216 of 2019

Sushil Chandra Srivastava And Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. And Ors. ...Respondents
1 All. Sushil Chandra Srivastava And Anr. Vs. State of U.P. And Ors.
1175
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Arpan Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C. Sri Devi Prasad Mishra

A.
Noise
Pollution
(Regulation
and
Control) Rules, 2000-Rule 5, 6, 7 and 8are
mandatory.
Noise
Pollution
(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000-
Rule 3(2)- cast an obligation on state
government
to
categorize
area
in
industrial, commercial, residential and
silence zone. Directions issued. (Para 27)

The Rule also enjoins the State Government to
take steps for abatement of noise including
noise emanating from vehicular movements,
blowing of horns, bursting of sound emitting
firecrackers, use of loud speakers or public
address
system
and
sound
producing
instruments and ensure that the existing noise
levels do not exceed the ambient air quality
standards specified under these rules. An area
comprising not less than 100 meters from
hospitals, educational institutions and courts
may be declared as silence area/zone for the
purpose of these rules. (Para 28)

B.
Noise
Pollution
(Regulation
and
Control) Rules, 2000-Rule 7-The use of
word 'shall" make it imperative that duty
is cast on the authority to act on the
complaint immediately. (Para30)

The Rule 8 requires furnishing opportunity of
hearing to the wrong doer. But no such
requirement is necessary under the Rule 7.
One of the objects of Rule 7 seems to stop the
sound emitting equipment immediately and
not to insist to follow long drawn procedure to
file a written complaint and to give opportunity
to offender. Since noise pollution affects
human health, it needs to be stopped
immediately. (Para 31) (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J.)

1. This writ proceedings has been
instituted by two petitioners who are
aggrieved by indiscriminate use
of
Loudspeaker
in
a
residential
area
regardless of time.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is
that the District administration has
installed huge L.C.Ds. equipped with
amplifiers in the residential area. They are
resident of Hashimpur Road, Prayagraj,
which is a densely populated area. The
L.C.D. starts from 4.00 A.M. till midnight
regularly without any break with full
sound. The L.C.D. creates sound problem
as well as public nuisance in the
residential area. It is stated that the mother
of petitioner no.1 is aged about 85 years
and she is suffering from multiple age
related diseases and the high noise
pollution is causing serious problem in
her ears and heart. It is further stated that
the son of petitioner no.2 is studying in
Class 12th and due to sound pollution he
is unable to prepare for the examination.
It is stated that in the area there are three
hospitals/
nursing
homes,
namely,
Yashlok Hospital, Alka Hospital and
Astha Clinic. A large number of patients
are admitted in these hospital, some of
them are suffering from heart and other
serious ailments. They are also affected
by high noise pollution.

3.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submitted that authorities have
failed to enforce the law and directions
issued by the Supreme Court in a series of
the decisions. It is stated that similar
L.C.Ds. and speakers have been installed
all over the city which have raised the
noise pollution level to an impermissible
limit under the Law. It is stated that in
spite of the law laid down in the case of
NOISE POLLUTION (V), IN RE, 2005
(5) SCC 733 and the statutory rules
framed by the Central Government, on
1176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
account of the inaction on the part of the
concerned authority most of the citizens
are feeling inconvenience and their health
is affected by the noise pollution.

4. On 22.01.2019, time was granted
to the State functionaries to file a counter
affidavit and mention the fact that what
action has been taken against the
offenders
of
the
Noise
Pollution
(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and
various directions issued by the Supreme
Court from time to time, in the last five
years. The relevant part of the order reads
as under:

"Sri Ajit Kumar Singh,
learned Additional Advocate General
appears for State respondents and Sri J.N.
Maurya, learned Advocate has accepted
notices on behalf of newly impleaded
respondent - U.P. Pollution Control
Board.

As prayed, respondents are
granted time to file counter affidavit. The
State respondents shall mention in their
counter affidavit that in how many cases
the action has been taken against the
offenders
of
the
Noise
Pollution
(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and
various directions issued by the Supreme
Court from time to time, in the last five
years (1.1.2014 to 31.12.2018).

Put up this case on 13th February,
2019 in the additional cause list for
further
hearing.
Learned
Additional
Advocate General assures the Court that
in the meantime the administration shall
make endeavor to comply with the
directions of the Supreme Court in the
matter of noise pollution."

5. On 29.03.2019, when no response
was filed by the respondents, the Court
passed the following order:

"On 22.01.2019, we had
directed the learned counsel for the
respondents to file a counter affidavit
mentioning therein that in how many
cases the action has been taken against
the offenders of the Noise Pollution
(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and
the various directions issued by the
Supreme Court from time to time, in the
last five years (1.1.2014 to 31.12.2018).

The said order has not been
complied with as yet.

We direct the respondent no.3 to
furnish the said information by 05.04.2019.

Put up this case for further
hearing in the additional cause list on
05.04.2019."

6. In a companion Writ Petition
No. 41684 of 2018, Sanjay Sharma vs.
State of U.P., the Additional Advocate
General has received the instruction. A
Xerox copy of the said instruction has
also been taken on the record of this case.
The said instruction is signed by the
District Magistrate, Prayagraj.

7. We have perused the instruction. It is
stated that in compliance of the earlier
direction issued by this Court at Lucknow
Bench in the case of PIL (Civil) No. 24981 of
2017, Motilal Yadav vs. State of U.P., the
District Magistrate has issued a direction on
10.01.2019 for the compliance of the
directions of the Court. He has also
constituted a team of the revenue and police
officials to make regular inspection by visiting
various religious places and other public
places where the loudspeakers / public address
system are used on permanent basis. This
team will keep a strict vigil over these places.

8. It is worthwhile to mention that along
with the instruction two charts have been
furnished. Chart No. 1 deals with the
1 All. Sushil Chandra Srivastava And Anr. Vs. State of U.P. And Ors.
1177
illegal use of loudspeakers in religious
places and Chart No.2 shows violation of
Rules, 2000 at public places. These charts
indicate that in Allahabad total 1860 loud
speakers were found without any license.
In all such cases the notices were issued
but no action has been taken against any
of the offender. A perusal of column
nos.8 and 9 clearly shows that no action
under Rules, 2000 or any other relevant
law has been taken against offenders and
eventually licenses were granted to all the
1860 loud speakers without taking any
action under the Rules. The said chart is
extracted below:

Ekk0
mPp
U;k;ky;]
[k.MihB
y[kum }kjk tufgr fjV ;kfpd 1⁄4flfoy1⁄2 la0
& 24981@ 2017 eksrh yky ;kno cuke LVsV
vkQ ;w0 ih0 ds lac/k es lwpukA

izi= la0 & 1 /kkfeZd LFkyksa ij
/ofu ;a=ks ds iz;ksx ds vuqefr ds laca/k esa
lwpuk

tuin iz;kxjkt
dz0
la0
tui
n

/kkfeZ
d
LFkykas
dh
la[;k
ftuesa
ykmM
Lihd
j@
/ofu
;a=
iz;ksx
esa
yk;s
tk
jgs
gSA

/kkfeZ
d
LFkyksa
dh
la[;k
ftuesa
ykmM
Lihd
j@
/ofu
;a=
iz;ksx
es
yk;s
tk
jgs gS
ijUrq
fu;r
izkf/k
dkjh
ls
vuqKk
izkIr
ugh
dh
x;h
gSA

dkye
04 esa
mfYy
f[kr
/kkfeZ
d
LFkyksa
esa l

fdru
ks dks
uksfV
l nh
x;h
dky
e 04
esa
mfYy
f[kr
/kkfeZ
d
LFkyksa
esa l

UkksfV
l ds
mijkU
r
fdru
ks
us
vuqKk
izkIr
dh
dky
e 04
esa
mfYy
f[kr
/kkfeZ
d
LFkyksa
esa l

UkksfV
l ds
mijk
Ur
Hkh
vuqK
k u
izkIr
djus
ds
dkj.k
fdr
us
/kkfeZ
d
LFky
ls
ykm
MLih
dj@
dky
e 04
esa
mfYy
f[kr
/kkfeZ
d
LFkyksa
esa ls
fdrus
deZpk
fj;
ks@
vf/k
dkfj
;ks ds
fo#)
dk;Zo
kgh
dh
x;h
vfHk;qf
Dr @
vU;
dk;Zok
gh dk
fooj.k
A
/ofu
;a=
mrj
ok;s
x;sA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
uxj
eftL
VSV
230
230
230
230
0
0
0
2
,0
lh0
,e0
& 1
87
87
87
87
0
0
0
3
,0
lh0
,e0
& 2
131
131
131
131
0
0
0
4
,0
lh0
,e0
& 3

152
152
152
152
0
0
0
5
lnj 66
66
66
66
0
0
0
6
lksjkao 226
226
226
226
0
0
0
7
Qwyiq
j

292
292
292
292
0
0
0
8
gf.M
;k
349
349
349
349
0
0
0
9
djN
uk

194
194
194
194
0
0
0
10
ckjk 30
30
30
30
0
0
0
11
estk 77
77
77
77
0
0
0
012
dksjkao 26
26
26
26
0
0
0

bykg
kckn
1860
1860 1860
1860
0
0
0

g0 vi0
 vij ftyk eftLVsaV 1⁄4uxj1⁄2
 iz;kxjkt

9. Another chart shows that in public
places also several violations of the Rules,
2000 have been found but in those cases
also no action has been taken. The chart is
extracted below:

ek0
mPPk
U;k;ky;]
[k.MihB
y[kuÅ }kjk tufgr ;kfpdk 1⁄4flfoy1⁄2 la0 &
1178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
24981@ 2017 eksrhyky ;kno cuke LVsV vkWQ
;w0 ih0 ds laca/k esa lwpukA

izi= la0 & 2 lkoZtfud LFkyksa ij
/ofu ;a=ks ds vuqefr ds laca/k es lwpuk tuin
bykgkcknA

dz0
la0

tui
n
lkoZ
tfu
d
LFkyksa
dh
la[;k
ftu
esa
ykm
MLih
dj@
/ofu
;a=
iz;ksx
esa
yk;s
tk
jgs
gSA
lkoZ
tfu
d
LFkyksa
dh
la[;k
ftuesa
ykm
MLih
dj@
/ofu
;a=
iz;ksx
es
yk;s
tk
jgs gS
ijUrq
fu;r
izkf/k
dkjh
ls
vuqK
k
izkIr
ugh
dh
x;h
gSA
fdr
uks
dks
uksfV
l nh
x;h

uksfV
l ds
mijk
Ur
fdr
uks us
vuqK
k
izkIr
dh
uksfV
l ds
mijkU
r Hkh
vuqK
k u
izkIr
djus
ds
dkj.k
fdru
s
lkoZ
tfu
d
LFky
ls
ykm
MLih
dj@
/ofu
;a=
mrj
ok;s
x;s
dky
e 4
esa
mfYy
f[kr
lkoZ
tfu
d
LFkyksa
ds
laca/k
esa
fdr
us
deZp
kfj;ksa
@
vf/k
dkfj
;ks ds
fo#
)
dk;ZO
kkgh
dh
x;hA

vfHk;qf
Dr@
vU;
dk;ZOkk
gh dk
fooj.k
A

1
2
4
4
5
6
7
8
9

uxj
eftL
VaSV
11
11
11
0
11
0
0

,0
lh0
,e0
& 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

,0
lh0
,e0
& 2
35
35
35
35
0
0
0

,0
lh0
,e0
& 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

lnj 0
0
0
0
0
0
0

lksjka
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Qwyiq
j
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

gf.M
;k
2
0
2
0
0
0
0

djN
uk
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

ckjk 0
0
0
0
0
0
0

estk 0
0
0
0
0
0
0

dksjka
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

bykg
kckn
48
46
48
35
11
0
0

 g0 vi0
 vij ftyk eftLVasV 1⁄4uxj1⁄2
 iz;kxjkt

10. From a perusal of the said
chart it is evident that 1860 loudspeakers
are used in the religious places. None of
the loudspeakers were granted permission
under the Rules, 2000. Column no. 5 of
the chart shows that they were issued
notices. Column nos. 8 and 9 show that no
action has been taken against the persons
who
were
illegally
using
the
loudspeakers/public address systems. The
Column nos. 8 and 9 clearly indicate that
the Rules, 2000 and the direction of the
Supreme Court has not been complied
with. Similar position is in respect of the
public places where the loudspeakers are
in use. This chart also shows that no
action has been taken against the person
who
are
using
the
loudspeakers
indiscriminately.

11. In the instruction it is recorded
that the District Magistrate in compliance
with the direction of the Principal
Secretary (Home) dated 04.01.2018 has
issued certain directions on 10.01.2018
for strict compliance of the Noise
Pollution Rules. He has constituted
separate teams for City and Tehsils. The
Additional District Magistrate (City) is
the Nodal Magistrate, S.P. (city) is the
Nodal Police Officer, City Magistrate and
Circle officer (I) are members of the team.
1 All. Sushil Chandra Srivastava And Anr. Vs. State of U.P. And Ors.
1179
Similar teams have been constituted for
the different parts of city and Tehsils, i.e.,
Phulpur, Soraon, Handia, Karchhana,
Meja, Koraon and Bara. These teams are
required to visit all the religious and
public
places
during
any
cultural,
religious, or festive occasion.

12. The above chart shows that the
State Government and its functionaries
have miserably failed to perform their
duties cast upon them under the Rules,
2000. They have equally failed to enforce
the direction of the Supreme Court issued
from time to time. The details of which
has been mentioned in the forthcoming
paras of this judgment.

13. It is pity that administration is
not serious in taking any action against
those who breach the law and directions
of the Supreme Court.

14. In India the people generally do
not consider the noise as sort of pollution,
hence, most of the people are not fully
conscious about the effect of the noise
pollution on their health.

15. The Central Government in
exercise of its powers conferred by clause
(ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 3, subsection (1) and clause (b) of sub-section
(2) of Section 6 and Section 25 of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has
made the Noise Pollution (Regulation and
Control) Rules, 2000 (for short Noise
Pollution Rules) to control of noise
producing and generating source.

16. To appreciate the contentions
raised by the parties and the important
issue of public importance raised in this
proceedings, it would be convenient first
of all to advert to the provisions of Rules,
2000. Rule 2 (c) (d), (e) and (f) of the
Rules,
2000
define
the
authority,
educational
institution
and
hospital
respectively. They are extracted below:

"(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 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;

"(d)
"court"
means
a
governmental body consisting of one or
more judges who sit to adjudicate
disputes and administer justice and
includes any court of law presided over
by a judge, judges or a magistrate and
acting as a tribunal in civil, taxation and
criminal cases;

(e)
"educational
institution"
means a school, seminary, college,
university,
professional
academies,
training institutes or other educational
establishment, not necessarily a chartered
institution
and
includes
not
only
buildings, but also all grounds necessary
for the accomplishment of the full scope
of educational instruction, including those
things essential to mental, moral and
physical development;

(f)
"hospital"
means
an
institution for the reception and care of
sick, wounded infirm or aged persons,
and includes government or private
hospitals, nursing homes and clinics."

17. The Rule 5 deals with the
restrictions
on
the
use
of
loudspeakers/public address system and
1180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sound producing instruments. This Rule
was inserted by Rule 5(1) of the Noise
Pollution
(Regulation
And
Control)
Rules, 2000, which was notified on
11.01.2010. The said Rule reads as under:

"5. Restrictions on the use of
loud speakers/public address system and
sound producing instruments-

(1) A loud speaker or a public
address system shall not be used except
after obtaining written permission from
the authority.

(2) A loud speaker or a public
address system or any sound producing
instrument or a musical instrument or a
sound amplifier shall not be used at night
time except in closed premises for
communication, within like auditoria,
conference
rooms,
community
halls,
banquet
halls
or
during
a
public
emergency.

(3) Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-rule (2), the State
Government may subject to such terms
and conditions as are necessary to reduce
noise pollution, permit use of loud
speakers or public address system and the
like during night hours (between 10.00
p.m. to 12.00 midnight) on or during any
cultural or religious festive occasion of a
limited duration not exceeding fifteen
days in all during a calendar year and the
concerned State Government or District
Authority in respect of its jurisdiction as
authorised by the State Government shall
generally specify in advance, the number
and particulars of the days on which such
exemption should be operative.

Explanation.- For the purposes
of this sub-rule, the expressions-

(i)"festive
occasion"
shall
include any National function or State
function as notified by the Central
Government or State Government; and

(ii) "National function or State
function "shall include"-

(A) Republic Day;

(B) Independence Day;

(C) State Day; or

(D) Such other day as notified
by the Central Government or the State
Government.

(4) The noise level at the
boundary of the public place, where
loudspeaker or public address system or
any other noise source is being used shall
not exceed 10 dB (A) above the ambient
noise standards for the area or 75 dB (A)
whichever is lower.

(5) The peripheral noise level of
a privately owned sound system or a
sound producing instrument shall not, at
the boundary of the private place, exceed
by more than 5 dB (A) the ambient noise
standards specified for the area in which
it is used."

5A. Restrictions on the use of
horns, sound, emitting construction
equipments
and
bursting
of
fire
crackers.-

(1) No horn shall be used in
silence zones or during night time in
residential areas except during a public
emergency.

(2) Sound emitting fire crackers
shall not be burst in silence zone or
during night time.

(3) Sound emitting construction
equipment shall not be used or operated
during night time in residential areas and
silence zones."

18.

Rule
6
deals
with
the
consequences of any violation in silence
zone/area. It provides as under:

"6.
Consequences
of
any
violation in silence zone/area.-
1 All. Sushil Chandra Srivastava And Anr. Vs. State of U.P. And Ors.
1181

"Whoever, in any place covered
under the silence zone/area commits any
of the following offence, he shall be liable
for penalty under the provisions of the
Act:-

(i) whoever, plays any music or
uses any sound amplifiers,

(ii) Whoever, beats a drum or
tom-tom or blows a horn either musical
or pressure, or trumpet or beats or sounds
any instrument.

(iii)
whoever,
exhibits
any
mimetic, musical or other performances
of a nature to attract crowds,

(iv)
whoever,
bursts
sound
emitting fire crackers; or

(v)
whoever,
uses
a
loud
speaker or a public address system."

19. Rule 7 deals with complaints to
be made to the authority. It provides as
under:

"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.

(2) The authority shall act on
the complaint and take action against the
violator in accordance with the provisions
of these rules and any other law in force."

20. Rule 8 deals with power to
prohibit etc. continuance of music sound
or noise. It provides as under:

"8. Power to prohibit etc.
continuance of music sound or noise.-

(1) If the authority is satisfied
from the report of an officer incharge 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 reproducing sound,

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

(b) The carrying on in or upon,
any premises of any trade, a vocation 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
1182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against the order and shall if it rejects
any such application either wholly or in
part record its reason for such rejection."

21. On a plain reading of these
Rules clearly shows that they are
mandatory.

22. From the instruction it transpires
that the district authorities have classified
different areas/zones of this city in
industrial
area,
commercial
area,
residential area and silence zone in terms
of the Schedule under the Rules, 2000. In
the City the following places have been
declared silence zone:

(a) High Court

(b) District Court

(c) Beli Hospital

(d) Children Hospital

(e) Allahabad University

23. We find that the silence zones
have been declared without adverting to
the Rules, 2000.

24. Rule 2 (f) defines the hospitals.
It indicates that an institution for the
reception and care of sick, wounded,
infirm or aged persons, and includes
Government or private hospitals, nursing
homes and clinics. In Prayagraj, there are
about 200 hospitals, clinics and nursing
homes which are registered. However,
only two hospitals namely Beli Hospital
and Children Hospital have been declared
silence zone. Surprisingly, Swoop Rani
Nehru Hospital (Medical College) and
Kamla Nehru Hospital, who are amongst
the prominent hospitals of the city have
not been included in the silence zone.
Both the hospitals are in the heart of city.

25. Rule 2 (e) defines the
educational institutions. It covers a
school, seminary, college, university,
professional
academies,
training
institutes
or
other
educational
establishment.
A
large
number
of
colleges in district Prayagraj, such as,
Chaudhary Mahadev Degree College,
Allahabad Degree College, Government
Inter College, St. Joseph College, St.
Mary College, Boys High School,
Maharshi Pantanjali, MaryWanamaker
Girls Inter College, Jagat Taran Girls
Inter College and Jagat Taran Girls
Degree College etc. have not been
included in the silence zone, which is
contrary to the definition of the education
institution.

26. In view of the above discussion,
we direct the State Government /
appropriate authority to undertake fresh
exercise to declare the silence zone
category in the light of the definition of
Rule 2 (e) and Rule 2 (f) afresh.

27. The Rule 3 (2) cast an obligation
on the State Government to categorize the
area in industrial, commercial, residential
and silence zone for the purpose of
implementation of noise standards for
different areas.

28. The ambient air quality
standards in respect of noise for different
areas/zones shall be such as specified in
the Schedule annexed to these Rules. The
Rule also enjoins the State Government to
take steps for abatement of noise
including noise emanating from vehicular
movements, blowing of horns, bursting
of sound emitting firecrackers, use of
loud speakers or public address system
and sound producing instruments and
ensure that the existing noise levels do
not exceed the ambient air quality
standards specified under these rules. An
1 All. Sushil Chandra Srivastava And Anr. Vs. State of U.P. And Ors.
1183
area comprising not less than 100 meters
from hospitals, educational institutions
and courts may be declared as silence
area/zone for the purpose of these rules.

29.

Rule
4
lays
down
the
responsibility of the authorities for the
enforcement of noise pollution control
measures and due compliance of ambient
air quality in terms of the Schedule. A
person found guilty in violating the Rules
shall be liable to be punished under the
provisions of these Rules and other law in
force.

30. Rule 7 confers right to any
person to make a complaint if he finds
that there is violation of law by a sound
which is caused by playing, beating,
clashing, blowing or use in any manner
whatsoever of any instrument which is
producing
a
noise
exceeding
the
prescribed noise level in any part of the
city, he can make a complaint to the
authority. A perusal of the Rule further
shows that any person can make a
complaint oral or in writing to the
authority regarding violation of the Rules,
2000. Sub-section (2) of Rule 7 says that
the authority shall act on the complaint.
The use of the word "shall" makes it
imperative that duty is cast on the
authority to act on
the complaint
immediately.

31. The Rule 8 is preventive in
nature, it provides that if the authority is
satisfied
from
the
report
of
the
concerned officer of police station or
complaint
from
a
person
or
an
information received by him that it is
necessary
to
prevent
annoyance,
disturbance, discomfort or injury to
public or any person who resides in the
vicinity, he may issue direction in
writing to any person for preventing,
prohibiting any instrumental music,
loudspeaker, any instrument capable of
producing, reproducing sound. The Rule
8 requires furnishing opportunity of
hearing to the wrong doer. But no such
requirement is necessary under the Rule
7. One of the object of Rule 7 seems to
stop the sound emitting equipment
immediately and not to insist to follow
long drawn procedure to file a written
complaint and to give opportunity to
offender. Since noise pollution affects
human health, it needs to be stopped
immediately.

32. Having due regard to the
materials
on
the
record,
we
are
constrained
to
observe
that
the
administration either, appears to be totally
oblivious of the law and directions issued
by the Supreme Court or there is gross
inaction on its part to enforce the statutory
rules and the directions of the Supreme
Court which are binding upon all the
authorities under Article 141 of the
Constitution. No valid reasons have been
furnished by the authorities for not
complying the law.

33. It needs no emphasis that in a
democracy the rule of the law is the basic
rule of governance of any civilized
society. The Constitution has entrusted
the onerous task upon the Superior Courts
to uphold the Constitution and the law.
The following passage of the judgement
of Supreme Court in Supreme Court
Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of
India, (1993) 4 SCC 441, at page 602 is
apposite:

"Under
our
constitutional
scheme, the judiciary has been assigned
the onerous task of safeguarding the
fundamental rights of our citizens and of
upholding the rule of law. Since the
1184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Courts are entrusted the duty to uphold
the Constitution and the laws, it very often
comes in conflict with the State when it
tries to enforce its orders by exacting
obedience from recalcitrant or indifferent
State agencies."

34. In N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy
Khose, (2009) 7 SCC 1 : (2009) 3 SCC
(Civ) 1, at page 31 the Supreme Court
observed thus:

".... 48. It is the majesty of the
institution that has to be maintained and
preserved in the larger interest of the rule
of law by which we are governed. It is the
obligation of each organ of the State to
support
this
important
institution.
Judiciary holds a central stage in
promoting and strengthening democracy,
human rights and the rule of law. People's
faith is the very foundation of any
judiciary. Injustice anywhere is a threat
to justice everywhere and therefore the
People's faith in the judiciary cannot be
afforded to be eroded."

35. There are a large number of the
judgments of the Supreme Court, this
Court and the other High Courts dealing
with menace of the noise pollution.
Before adverting to the Judgements of the
Supreme Court we deem it appropriate to
firstly refer to a recent order of a Division
Bench of this Court wherein after
affording the opportunity to State, several
directions have been issued to the
functionaries of the State Government for
its compliance.

36.In PIL (Civil) No. 24981 of
2017, Motilal Yadav Vs. State of U.P.,
this Court at Lucknow Bench has issued
several directions to control the noise
pollution in the State and for enforcement
of Rules, 2000 and directions of the
Supreme Court.

37. This Court directed the Principal
Secretary, Department of Home, Civil
Secretariat, Lucknow and the Chairman
U.P. Pollution Control Board, U.P.,
Lucknow to file their separate personal
affidavit specifying therein (a) what steps
have been taken to ensure the strict
compliance of the Rules, 2000; (b) whether
all the loudspeakers installed over the
religious structures, namely, mosques,
temples, gurudwaras and other public
places have been set up after obtaining
written permission from the authority and
if not what action has been taken for
removal of the same; (c) if the said
loudspeakers or public address systems
were allowed to come over the temples,
mosques, gurudwaras and other public
places without any written permission
from the authority then what action has
been taken against such officials who were
required
to
ensure
that
no
such
loudspeakers or public address system
shall be used except after obtaining written
permission from the authority; (d) what
accountability has been fixed/sought to be
fixed over such officials who have not
strictly enforced provisions of Rules, 2000;
(e) how many loudspeakers and public
address system have been dismantled and
removed
from
temples,
mosques,
gurudwaras and other buildings which are
being used without written permission; (f)
what action has been initiated against the
processions which are taken out day and
night with loud music including marriage
processions and (g) whether a suitable
enforcement machinery by means of an
identified website has been set up or is in
the process of being set up as directed by
this Court in one of its judgment in Writ
Petition (M/B) No. 11473 of 2014.
1 All. Sushil Chandra Srivastava And Anr. Vs. State of U.P. And Ors.
1185

38. The Court expressed its
dissatisfaction with the measures taken by
the authorities to control the noise
pollution, hence, they were directed to be
personally
present.
The
State
functionaries in their affidavits have
informed the Court regarding some of the
measures which the State Government
propose to take. One of the proposed
measures was that the State Government
is planning to purchase machine to
measure the noise emanating from the
loudspeakers/ public address system,
music instruments, horns and other
instruments capable of producing or
reproducing sound. In this regard a
Government Order dated 04.01.2018 was
issued.

39. The Court again expressed its
dissatisfaction over the measures provided
in
the
Government
Order
dated
04.01.2018 to prevent and check the noise
pollution and termed the Government
Order to be a little use in absence of any
check mechanism which needs to control
noise pollution.

40. On 30.04.2018, the Division
Bench further considered the better
affidavits filed by the State functionaries,
wherein it was mentioned that the notices
have been issued (i) to approximately one
lac religious places for the use of
loudspeakers/noise machine of which
permission
has
been
sought
by
approximately 84,000 religious places;
(ii) flying squads have been constituted to
check the complaints pertaining to noise
pollution; (iii) a proposal to Finance
Department for sanction of Rs. 5.0
crores for purchase of noise measuring
instrument has been sent; (iv) the
Chairman of the U.P. Pollution Control
Board had mentioned in his affidavit
that a request has been made to the Uttar
Pradesh
Development
Systems
Corporation Ltd. (UPDESCO) to develop
mobile application for measurement of
noise levels for making it available to the
prescribed authorities and the public
which would be useful for filing of
complaints and for taking action by the
authorities and (v) the IIT, Kanpur was
also requested to provide technical
advice for the use of sound governors in
the loudspeakers and other noise sources
and for developing standard operating
procedure for monitoring of noise from
different sources.

41. The Court was also informed
that
about
20,000
complaints
were
received pertaining to the noise pollution.
On 12.03.2018 the Principal Secretary,
Department
of
Home
and
the
Chairperson,
U.P.
Pollution
Control
Board were present in the Court and
informed that the State Government has
sought
guidelines/opinion
from
the
Secretary,
Environment
and
Forest
Department, New Delhi for the best
practice or Standard Operating Procedure
(for short SOP) in order to control the
noise
pollution.
The
Ministry
of
Environment and Forest Department,
New Delhi vide its communication dated
26.04.2018 informed that the proposal of
the State is under consideration. The
Court was also informed that the ambient
noise level has shown reduction in the
month of April, 2018 in 15 cities out of
the 21 cities, which were monitored after
the order passed in the aforesaid PIL. It
was also informed that the mobile
application is under trial run and a project
has been awarded to the IIT, Kanpur for
carrying
out
feasibility
study
on
implementation
of
measures
for
1186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
measurement and mitigation of noise
pollution.

42. The issue with regard to the
noise pollution has been considered in the
long line of the judgments of the Supreme
Court and the other High Courts. For the
first time the Supreme Court had occasion
to deal with the case of Churches of God
(Full Gospel) In Vs. K.K.R. Magestice
Colony Welfare, 2000 (7) SCC 282.

43. In NOISE POLLUTION (V),
IN RE (Supra) and Farhd Wadia Vs.
Union of India and Ors., 2005 (8) SCC
796, the Supreme Court elaborately
considered the implication of the noise
pollution in day to day life of people of
India as enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. During the course
of hearing in the said case the Court
enlarged the issue and considered the
problems of the noise pollution and its
different aspects with reference to the
Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
which guarantees the life and personal
liberty to all persons. Referring its earlier
judgments the Court observed that right to
life enshrined under Article 21 is not of
mere
survival
or
existence
but
it
guarantees a right of persons to life with
human dignity and it includes person's life
meaningful, complete and worth living.
The Court observed that "who wishes to
live in peace, comfort and quite within his
house has a right to prevent noise as
pollutant reaching him. None can claim a
right to create noise even in his own
premises which would travel beyond his
precincts
and
cause
nuisance
to
neighbors or others."
 (Emphasis supplied)

44. The Court has turned down the
submission that a person has fundamental
right under Article 19(1) a) of the
Constitution of India for freedom of
speech and right to expression but the
rights are not absolute. The Court has held
that no one can claim a fundamental right
to create noise by amplifying the sound of
his speech with the help of loudspeakers.

45. The Court has considered
various sources of noise pollution such as
road traffic noise; aircraft noise; noise
from railroads; construction noise; noise
in industry; noise in buildings; noise from
consumer products; noise from fireworks.

46. The Supreme Court has also
referred methodology adopted in other
countries for noise control and in this
regard it has considered some of the
legislation made in Japan, Noise Act,
1966 UK, Noise and Statutory Nuisance
Act, 1993, U.S. Noise Pollution and
Abatement Act, 1970, Law of the People's
Republic of China and Prevention and
Control of Pollution from Environmental
Noise (adopted on 29.10.1996).

47. After considering the effect of
the noise as nuisance the Court observed
as under:

"17. In the modern day noise
has become one of the major pollutants
and it has serious effects on human
health. Effects of noise depend upon the
sound's pitch, its frequency and time
pattern and length of exposure. Noise has
both auditory and non-auditory effects
depending upon the intensity and the
duration of the noise level. It affects sleep,
hearing, communication, mental and
physical health.