Supreme Court of India
DR. BALWANT SINGHversusCOMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 766
- Decided
- 7 November 2014
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the police‑induced and public‑generated disturbances constitute a nuisance violating Article 21, and directed the State to strictly implement the Noise Pollution case directions to curb noise and protect the appellant’s right to peaceful living.
Summary
Dr. Balwant Singh, a retired Director General of Police, lived in a house opposite the Rajasthan State Assembly where frequent political rallies, loudspeakers and police‑set up barricades created constant noise and disturbance, rendering his residence uninhabitable. After his oral and written complaints to the Commissioner of Police and a petition to the National Human Rights Commission were ignored, the Rajasthan Human Rights Commission ordered the State to stop the interference, but the State failed to comply and his house was later attacked. Singh filed a writ petition under Article 226; the High Court dismissed it on the ground that the State had given assurances, and the Division Bench affirmed the same. Singh appealed to the Supreme Court, which examined whether the continuous noise and police actions constitute a legal nuisance infringing the right to life under Article 21 and whether the State must obey the directions issued in the landmark Noise Pollution case. Relying on the law of nuisance in tort and the Court’s earlier Noise Pollution judgment, the Supreme Court held that the disturbances do violate Article 21 and that the State is bound to implement the specific noise‑control measures. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to ensure strict compliance with the Noise Pollution directions and with the remedial steps outlined in the State’s counter‑affidavit. The appeal was allowed in part, modifying the lower court’s order.
Issues considered
- The disturbance caused by police, state officials and public gatherings amounts to a nuisance infringing the appellant’s right to life under Article 21.
- Whether the State is bound to implement the directions issued in the Noise Pollution (V), In Re judgment.
- Whether the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition on the basis of State assurances was legally valid.
- Whether further specific directions are required to curb noise pollution and ensure peaceful residence of the appellant.
Legislation cited
Subjects
NuisanceNoise PollutionArticle 21Fundamental RightsHuman Rights CommissionPublic OrderPoliceEnvironmental LawWrit PetitionState Liability
Judgment
• [2014] 11 S.C.R. 123
DR. BALWANT SINGH A
v.
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 10024 of 2014)
NOVEMBER 07, 2014
B
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.)
iorts - Nuisance - Complaint to Human Rights
Commission - Direction to State to effectively stop C
interference with the right of complainant to lead independent
and peaceful life - Despite the directions, attack on the house
of complainant - Writ petition - Disposed of by High Court
in view of assurance by the State to settle the controversy -
On appeal held: The disturbance created by the Police/State D
Officials/people at large in the appellant's peaceful living in
his house adversely affects his right guaranteed under Article
21 - Direction to the State to comply with the directions
issued in *Noise Pollution case in letter and spirit to control
noise pollution - State further directed to effectively implement E
the measures suggested by it- Constitution of India, 1950 -
Art.21.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Nuisance in any form as recognized in the F
law of Torts - whether private, public or common which
results in affecting anyone's personal or/and property
rights gives him a cause of action/right to seek remedial
measures in Court of law against those who caused such
nuisance to him and further gives him a right to obtain G
necessary reliefs both in the form of preventing
committing of nuisance and appropriate damages/
compensation for the loss, if sustained by him, du~ ~o
causing of such nuisance. [Para 21) [132-B-C]
123 H
A
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R.
Ratanlal Dhirajlal - Law of Torts by G.P.Singh - 26th
•
Edition pages - 621,637,640 - referred to.
2.1. In *Noise Pollution case, the Court issued
directions to all the States directing them to ensure that
noise pollution caused due to use of various apparatus/
8
articles/ activities must be curbed and controlled by
resorting to methods and modes specified in several
rules/regulations dealing the subject. Once this Court
decides any question and declares the law and issues
C necessary directions then it is the duty of all concerned
to follow the law laid down and complJ/ with the
directions issued in letter and spirit by virtue of mandate
contained in Article 141 of the Constitution. [Paras 24 and
26] [133-A-B; 136-G]
D 2.2. Therefore, the respondents are directed to
ensure strict compliance of the directions C<ontained in
Para 174 to 178 of the judgment *Noise Pollution case and
for ensuring its compliance, whatever remedial steps
which are required to be taken by the State and their
E concerned department(s), the same be taken at the
earliest to prevent/check the noise pollution as directed
in the aforesaid directions. [Para 28] [137-8-C]
*Noise Pollution (V), In Re - Implementation of the Laws
for restricting use of loudspeakers and high volume producing
F sound systems 2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 624: (2005,) 5 SCC 733
- relied on.
3.1. So far as the disturbance created bJr the police/
state officials/people at large in the appellant's peaceful
G living in his house is concerned, they do result in
adversely affecting the appellant's rights guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution. [Para 29] [137-D]
*Noise Pollution (V), In Re - Implementation of the Laws
H for restricting use of loudspeakers and high volume producing
• DR. BALWANT SINGH v. COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE
sound systems 2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 624 : (2005) 5 SCC
125
A
733; Ramlila Maidan Incident 2012 (4 ) SCR 971: (2012) 5
sec 1 - relied on.
3.2. The Constitution, inter alia, casts a duty on the
State and their authorities to ensure that every citizen's 8
cherished rights guaranteed to him under the
Constitution are respected and preserved, and he/she is
allowed to enjoy them in letter and spirit subject to
reasonable restrictions put on them, as dreamt by the
framers of the Constitution. Intervention of the Court is C
called for at the instance of citizen when these rights are
violated by fellow citizens or by any State agency. If the
steps suggested by the State are implemented in letter
and spirit and further the implementation is observed in
its proper perspective by the State and its authorities from
time to time, then most of the problems presently being D
faced by the appellant and many others like him in the
concerned area(s) would be reduced to a large extent.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to ensure strict
compliance of the conditions/steps and while ensuring
its compliance, if the respondents consider that it needs E
some amendment(s) for ensuring better implementation
then in such eventuality, the same be done in the larger
interest of the residents of the concerned area and
equally for the benefits of the residents of different parts
in the State. [Paras 32, 33 and 34] [138-D-H; 139-A-B] F
Firm Kaluram Sitaram Vs. The Dominion of India AIR
1954 Bombay 50 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
G
2005 (1) Suppl. relied on Paras 27
SCR624 and 29
2012 (4) SCR 971 relied on Para 29
AIR 1954 Bombay 50 referred to Para 31 H
A
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
•
10024 of 2014.
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.05.2013 of the High
Court o( Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B.
B Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 378 of 2013.
V. Sivasubramanian, Mohan Kumar for the Appellant.
Rajeev Kumar Singh, Ruchi Kohli for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted
2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 21.05.2013
passed by the Division Bench cif the High Court of Judicature
D for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special
Appeal (Writ) No. 378 of 2013 which arises out of an order
dated 25.02.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B.
Civil writ Petition No. 2273 of 2013.
3. By impugned order, the Division Bench disposed of the
E appeal filed by the appellant herein in the light of the assurance
given by the State to settle the controversy raised by the
appellant in the writ petition/appeal.
4. Dissatisfied with the impugned order, the appellant has
F filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
5. This Court issued notice to the respondents. On being
served, learned counsel for the respondents filed counter
affidavit on behalf of the respondents.
G 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal,
it is necessary to mention the facts in brief.
8. The appellant (writ petitioner) is the resident of Jaipur
H
• DR. BALWANT SINGH v. COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
(Rajasthan). He retired as Director General of Police in March
1995. To settle after retirement, the appellant constructed his
127
A
house in a residential colony opposite to Vidhyut Bhawan in
Jyoti Nagar in Jaipur city. The locality and, in particular, the
location of the appallant's house is very near to "Vidhan Sabha"
(State Assembly Building). ·s
9. The appellant to his misfortune noticed that very
frequently, thousand/hundreds of people belonging to political/
non-political parties would gather on the road approaching to
Vidhan Sabha, which is in front of his house, with agitated mood C
and would undertake their "Protests March" or "Dharna" or
"Procession" for ventilating their grievances. The protesters
then would use indiscriminately loudspeakers by erecting
temporary stage on the road and go on delivering speeches
one after the other throughout the day which sometimes used
to continue for indefinite period regardless of time. Since there D
used to be a gathering of thousand/hundreds of people, the
demonstrators would indiscriminately make use of the
compound walls of nearby houses including that of the
appellant's house to ease themselves frequently at any time.
E
10. In order to regulate such events and to maintain law
and order situation, the State and Police Administration used
to put barricades and depute hundreds of police personnel to
see that no untoward incident occurs. These barricades used
. to be installed just in front of the gates of the houses of the F
residents including the appellant's house. The police personnel
like others would also use the walls of the residential houses
including that of the appellant's house to ease and nobody was
in a position to tell them not to do such activities in front of their
houses. The appellant also noticed that these activities had G
gained considerable momentum making living of the residents
of that area a miserable one because neither they were in a
position to stay comfortably and peacefully inside the house or
do any work due to constant noise pollution nor were in a
H
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R.
A position to come out of their house due to constant fear of
•
insecurity and restrictions put by the State.
11. The appellant was one I of the most affected persons
whose living in his house had become impossible due to these
activities and finding no solution to the problem faced,
8
compelled him to first approach the Commissioner of Police
and make an oral complaint but finding that no action was taken,
filed a written complaint on 21.11.2011 (Annexure P-1 ).
12. In the complaint, the appellant narrated the
C aforementioned grievances in detail and requested the
Commissioner of Police to take immediate effective remedial
steps to prevent such events.
13. Since the Commissioner of Police did not take any
0 action on the complaint, the appellant, on 06.03.2012, filed a
complaint before the National Human Rights Commission
(NHRC), New Delhi under the provisions of the Human Rights
Commission Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Acf'). The
NHRC forwarded the appellant's complaint to the Rajasthan
E State Human Rights Commission (RSHRC) for taking
appropriate action in accordance with law. The RSHRC, on
receipt of the complaint, registered the same being Petition No.
12/17/1720 and by order .dated 24.09.2012 partly allowed the
appellant's petition and directed the Additional Home Secretary
to order the concerned officials to effectively stop interference
F with the right of the appellan! herein to lead an independent and
peaceful life and ensure that :
"1. The crowd of demonstrators does not
assemble, on both roads opposite to the
G petitioner's house during the assembly
sessions.
2. The demonstrators are not allowed to use high
powered loudspeakers during day a1nd night.
H
• DR. BALWANT SINGH v. COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
3. The road is not closed after stopping traffic
129
A
and traffic movement is maintained in a
sustained and orderly· manner.
4. The policemen are stopped from urinating in
the .proximity of the wall of the petitioner's 8
house from the side of the M.L.A.'s complex
during the Assembly Sessions.
5. No barricading is done on the road opposite
to, and near, the house of the petitioner.''
c
14. Despite issuance of the aforementioned directions, the
State did not ensure its compliance and on the other hand,
some miscreants attacked the appellant's house and hence out
of disgust, the appellant was compelled to file writ petition
being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2273 of 2013 before the High D
Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, seeking appropriate reliefs
by issuance of writ of prohibition/mandamus against the State
and its authorities to protect the interest of the appellant, his
property and his peaceful living.
15. Learned single Judge, by order dated 25.02.2013 E
disposed of the appellant's writ petition observing that since
the State has already taken all necessary steps in the light of
the directions given by the RSHRC in their order dated
24.09.2012 and hence no more orders are called for in the writ
petition. F
16. Learned Single Judge, in the concluding part of his
order, observed as under:
" ....... .I am of the considered view that no order on
the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner be passed as G
the State Government has already taken all requisite
action within its powers to ensure that the peace and
quiet of the petitioner living in his residential house
at Jyoti Nagar locality in proximity to Vidhan Sabha
is not unduly disturbed. It would be expected that H
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 11 S.C.R. •
A measures detailed by the Additional Advocate
General in his submissions before this Court would
be implemented strictly."
. 17. The appellant, felt aggrieved, filed intra court appeal
B before the Division Bench of the High Court out of which this
appeal arises. The Division Bench, by impugned order, more
or less on the same lines on which the learned Single Judge
had disposed of the writ petition, decided the appellant's
appeal.
c 18. The Division Bench in the concluding part of their order
observed as under:
"In view of that assurance extended on behalf
of the State Government, the learned single Judge
D fnas already reached the conclusion that the
directions issued by the Human Rights Commission,
Rajasthan in its order dated 24.9.2012, have
substantially been complied with. At this stage, the
Division Bench of this Court cannot give further
E direction in the appeal. The State Government
obviously shall also comply with such order and act
in conformity with assurance given before the single
Bench and take special care to ensure that peace
and quiet of the petitioner, living in his residential
house at Jyoti Nagar locality in proximity to Vidhan
F
Sabha is not unduly disturbed."
It is against the aforementioned order of the Division Bench,
the appellant (writ petitioner) has filed this appeal.
G 19. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit. The
State, on affidavit, has stated that it is their duty to ensure that
no harm, injury, damage or inconvenience/nuisance of any
nature is caused to the life and property of any citizen on
account of any action and activities of other person(s) or/and
H State authorities and all personal/fundamental/property rights
• DR. BALWANT SINGH v. COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
131
guaranteed and recognized in law to every citizen are protected
to enable him to lead a meaningful life with dignity and peace
A
and to also enjoy his property. It is further stated that in
compliance to the order passed by RSHRC, the State has
1 issued directions for ensuring its compliance which are as
unde~ B
"a. Deputy Commissioner of Police has been
put in charge of the area in order to ensure law and
order in and around the residence of the petitioner._
b. Barricading at appropriate distance from the C
residence of the petitioner so that the movement of
the residents as well as of the petitioner is not
restricted as such and also because of the
demonstration in specific. When the legislative
assembly is in session barricading is done at least D
60 feet away from the residence of the petitioner.
c. Mobile public toilets (two vehicles) have been
placed by the Rajasthan Municipal Corporation in the
concerned area so that hygiene is maintained in and E
around the area which has been affected by regular
demonstration. Further all cautions have been taken
· that the public uses such facilities and neither police
personnel on duty nor the demonstraL r may spoil
the walls of the petitioner by urinating.
F
d. Prior permission as per the Rules are being
given by the office of Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Jaipur (South) to the demonstrators and
District Collector is directed to ensure that while
giving permission for demonstration it may also G
check that no instruments are allowed which may
violate the Rules or cause noise pollution." ·
20. It is with this background, the question arises as to
H
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R.
A whether the directions issued so far need any further
•
modification and if so, to what e·xtent.
21. The law on nuisance is well settled. Nuisance in any
form as recognized in the law of Torts· whether private, public
or common which results in affecting anyone's personal or/and
8
property rights gives him a cause of action/right to seek
remedial measures in Court of law against those who caused
such nuisance to him and further gives him a right to obtain
necessary reliefs both in the form of preventing committing of
nuisance and appropriate damages/compensation for the loss,
C if sustained by him, due to causing of such nuisance. (See •
Ratanlal Dhirajlal • Law of Torts by G.P.Singh · 26th Edition
pages·621,637,640).
22. We may, at this stage, consider apposite to take note
D of law laid down by this Court in Noise Pollution(V), In Re -
Implementation lof the Laws for restricting use of
loudspeakers and high volume producing sound
systems, (2005) 5 sec 733, as in our considered view, it has
a material bearing over the issue, which is the subject matter
E of this appeal.
23. This Court while entertaining the PIL filed by one
Organization called "Forum, Prevention of environmental and
sound pollution" had the occasion to examine the issue in
relation to nuisance of noise pollution caused to the people at
F large due to use of equipments/apparatus/articles etc. The
noise pollution caused generates different kinds of sounds
thereby constantly creates irritation and disturbance to the
people. Since it was a continuing wrong all over the country and
hence, this Court, in great detail, examined the issue in the light
G of the citizens rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1 ), 21 and
25 of the Constitution of India, read with all laws/rules/
regulations. relating to·pollution, including penal laws governing
this-issue.
H 24. Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti (as His Lordship then was),
• DR. BALWANT SINGH v. COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
133
speaking for the Bench in concluding para of the order, issued A
directions to all the States directing them to ensure that noise
pollution caused due to use of various apparatus/ articles/
activities must be curbed and controlled by resorting to methods
and modes specified in several rules/regulations dealing the
subject. These directions are extracted herein below:· B
"XII. Directions
It is hereby directed as under:
(1) Firecrackers c
174. 1. On a comparison of the two systems i.e.
the present system of evaluating firecrackers on the
basis of noise levels, ar;d the other where the
firecrackers shall be evaluated on the basis of
chemical composition, we feel that the latter method D
is more practical and workable in Indian
circumstances. It shall be followed unless and until
replaced by a better system.
2. The Department of Explosives (DOE) shall E
undertake necessary research activity for the
purpose and come out with the chemical formulae
for each type or category or class of firecrackers.
DOE shall specify the proportion/composition as well
as the maximum permissible weight of every F
chemical used in manufacturing firecrackers.
3. The Department of Explosives may divide the
firecrackers into two categories- (1) sound-emitting
firecrackers, and (i1) colour/light-emitting firecrackers.
G
4. There shall be a complete ban on bursting
·sound-emitting firecrackers between 10 p.m. and 6
a.m. It is not necessary to impose restrictions as to
time on bursting of colour/light-emitting firecrackers.
H
A
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201fJ 11 S.C.R.
5. Every manufacturer shall on the box of each
•
firecracker mention details of its chemical contents
and that it satisfies the requirement as laid down by
DOE. In case of a failure on the part of the
manufacturer to mention the details or in cases
B where the contents of the box do not match the
chemical formulae as stated on the box, the
manufacturer may be held liable.
6. Firecrackers for the purpose of export may
be manufactured bearing higher noise levels subject
c to the following conditions: (1) the manufacturer
should be permitted to do so only when he has an
export order with him and not otherwise; (ii) the
noise levels for these firecrackers should conform to
the noise standards prescribed in the country to
D which they are intended to be exported as per the
export order; (iii) these firecrackers should have a
different colour packing, from those intended to be
sold in India; (iv) they must carry a declaration
printed thereon something like "not for sale in India"
E or "only for export to country AB" and so on.
(ii) Loudspeakers
175. 1. 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.
G 2. No one shall beat a drum or tom-.tom or blow
a trumpet or beat or sound any instrument or use
any sound amplifier at night (between 10.00 p.m. and
6 a.m.) except in public emergencies.
3. The peripheral noise level of privately-owned
H
/
• DR. BALWANT SINGH v. COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
sound system shall not exceed by more than 5 dB(A)
135
A
than the ambient air-quality standard specified for the
area in which it is used, at the boundary of the private
place.
(iii) Vehicular noise B
176. No horn should be allowed to be used at
night (between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.) in residential area
except in exceptional circumstances.
(iv) Awareness c
177. 1. There is a need for creating general
awareness towards the hazardous effects of noise
pollution. Suitable chapters may be added in the
textbooks which teach civic sense to the children
D
and youth at the initial/early-level of education.
Special talks and lectures" be organised in the
schools to highlight the menace of noise pollution
and the role of the children and younger generation
in preventing it. Police and civil administration should
be trained to understand the various methods to E
curb the problem and also the laws on the subject.
2. The State must play an active role in this
process. Resident Welfare Associations, service
clubs and societies engaged in preventing noise F
pollution as a part of their projects need to be
encourag.fl,d and actively involved by the local
administration.
3. Special public awareness campaigns in G
anticipation of festivals, events and ceremonial
occasions whereat firecrackers are likely to be used,
need to be carried out.
The abovesaid guidelines are issued in exercise
of power conferred on this Court under Articles 141 H
A
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [2014) 11 S.C.R.
and 142 of the Constitution. These would remain in
•
force until modified by this Court or superseded by
an appropriate legislation.
(v) Generally
B 178. 1. The States shall make prc1vision for
seizure and confiscation of loudspeakers, amplifiers
and such other equipment as are found to be
creating noise beyond the permissible limits. ·
c 2. Rule 3 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and
Control) Rules, 2000 makes provision for specifying
ambient air-quality standards in respect of noise for
different areas/zones, categorisation of the areas for
the purpose of implementation of noise standards,
D authorising the authorities for enforcement and
achievement of laid down standards. The Central
Government/State Governments shall take steps for
laying down such standards and notifying the
authorities where it has not already been done."
E 25. We note with concern that though the aforesaid
directions were issued by this Court on 18.07.2005 for ensuring
compliance by all the States but it seems that these directions
were not taken note of much less implemented, at least, by the
State of Rajasthan in letter and spirit with the result that the
F residents of Jaipur city had to suffer the nuisance of noise
pollution apart from other related peculiar issues mentioned
above so far as the appellant's case is concerned.
26. Needless to reiterate that once this Court decides any
G question and declares the law and issues necessary directions
then it is the duty of all concerned to follow the law laid down
and comply the directions issued in letter and spirit by virtue of
mandate contained in Article 141 of the Constitution.
27. In our considered view, in the light of the authoritative
H
• DR. BALWANT SINGH v. COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
pronouncement rendered by this Court on the issue of noise
137
A
pollution in the case of Noise Pollution (V), In Re (supra), it
is not necessary for this Court to again deal with the same issue
except to issue appropriate directions for its compliance.
28. We, accordingly, direct the respondents to ~nsure strict 8
compliance of the directions contained in Para 174 to 178 of
the judgment of this Court in Noise Pollution (V), In Re
(supra), and for ensuring its compliance, whatever remedial
steps which are required to be taken by the State and their
concerned department(s), the same be taken at the earliest to C
prevent/check the noise pollution as directed in the aforesaid
directions.
29. Now so far as the disturbance created by the police/
state officials/people at large in the appellant's peaceful living
in his house is concerned, in our considered view, they do result D
in adversely affecting the appellant's rights guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution as held by this Court in Noise
Pollution (V), In Re (supra) and also in Ramlila Maidan
Incident in Re, (2012) 5 SCC 1. The RSHRC and the writ
Court were, therefore, justified in entertaining the complaint E
under the Act and the writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and in consequence justified in giving
appropriate directipns mentioned above while disposing the
appellant's complaint/writ petition.
F
30. We, however, note that the State was right on their part
in not contesting the appellant's complaint/writ petition by
raising technical/legal grounds finding the appellant's grievance
made in his complaint to be genuine and then rightly came out
with remedial suggestions to deal with the situation arising in
the case. G
31. Indeed, this reminds us of the subtle observations
made by Justice M.C. Chagla, Chief Justice of Bombay High
Court in Firm Kaluram Sitaram Vs. The Dominion of India,
AIR 1g54 Bombay 50, wherein while deciding the case H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 11 S.C.R.
A between the citizen on the one hand and State on the other,
•
the learned Chief Justice in his distinctive style of writing
reminded the State of their duty towards the citizens while
contesting his rights qua State and made the following
observations.
B
" .... we have often had occasion to say that when the
State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily rely
on technkalities, and if the State is satisfied that the
case of the citizen is a just one, even though legal
defences may be open to it, it must act, as has been
c said by eminent judges, as an honest person .......... "
32. We are in complete agreement with the
aforementioned statement of law laid down in Firm Kaluram
Sitaram (supra) as far back as in 1954. In our considered
D view, the Constitution, inter alia, casts a duty on the State and
their authorities to ensure that every citizen's cherished rights
guaranteed to him under the Constitution are respected and
preserved, and he/she is allowed to enjoy them in letter and
spirit subject to reasonable restrictions put on them, as dreamt
E by the framers of the Constitution. Intervention of the Court is
called for at the instance of citizen when these rights are
violated by fellow citizens or by any State agency.
33. We have perused the steps suggested by the State in
F their counter affidavit and find that if the steps suggested by
the State are implemented in letter and spirit and further the
implementation is observed in its proper perspective by the
State and its authorities from time to time coupled with any other
good suggestions, if noticed, while implementing the
suggestions, then most of the problems presently being faced
G by the appellant and many others like him in the concerned
area(s) would be reduced to a large extent.
34. We, accordingly, direct the respondents to ensure strict
compliance of the conditions/steps mentioned in Paras 5 (a)
H to (d) of the Counter Affidavit extracted above and while
• DR. BALWANT SINGH v. COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J ]
ensuring its compliance, if the respondents consider that it
139
A
needs some amendment(s) for ensuring better implementation
then in such eventuality, the same be done in the larger interest
of the residents of the concerned area and equally for the
benefits of the residents of different parts in the State. Needless
to say, while implementing the directions, its objective should s
always be to ensure that the rights of the citizens are not
affected adversely by any kind of nuisance as mentioned above.
35. In view of the foregoing discussion and the directions
contained above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part.
Impugned order stands modified to the extent mentioned above. c
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal partly allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Nuisance"Sign in to search