Holding

The Court held that the appellants may be permitted to submit a concrete proposal for noise‑control compliance within two months, with a decision to be taken within three months, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Summary

The appellants, residents of Bhandara, manufacture brass utensils in their homes. The Superintendent of Police issued notices ordering them to cease operations, alleging that the mechanical processes generated noise pollution that disturbed nearby residents, teachers, and students. The High Court dismissed the appellants' writ petition based on a report from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the notice could be enforced without affording the appellants an opportunity to propose noise‑control measures under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. The Court held that the appellants may submit a concrete proposal within two months on how they will comply with the prescribed norms, and the authorities must decide on the proposal within three months; the appellants may also seek an alternative site. The interim protection order was continued for three months, and the Court expressly refrained from expressing any view on the merits. The appeal was disposed of without costs.

Issues considered

Whether a notice directing cessation of a home‑based brass‑utensil manufacturing activity on grounds of noise pollution can be issued without first giving the appellants an opportunity to adopt remedial measures.
Whether the appellants are entitled to submit a concrete proposal for noise control under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
Whether the authorities must consider the feasibility of providing an alternative site to the appellants.

Legislation cited

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986s. 25, s. 3, s. 6
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986s. Rule 5
Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000s. Rule 3, s. Rule 4, s. Rule 6

Subjects

environmental lawnoise pollutionbrass utensil manufacturingremedial measuresalternative siteNoise Pollution Rules 2000Environment Protection Act 1986

Judgment

SHEIKH IKRAM SHEIKH ISRAIL AND ORS. A
~ v.
STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

APRIL 12, 2007

[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] B

"). Environmental law-Noise Pollution-Manufacturing of brass utensils
by residents of locality in their houses-Resulting in noise pollution-Issuance
of notice to stop the activities-Writ petition by manufacturers, dismissal of-
On appeal held: In view of the opportunity sought by residents to reduce
c
noise level, residents to give concrete proposal regarding control of noise
pollution-Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.

Appellants are engaged in manufacturing of brass utensils in their
respective houses at place B. Respondent No. 3-Superintendent of Police issued D
notices to the appellants directing them to stop their business since noise
pollution was created in the process of preparing brass utensils which affected
~'
the neighbours, teachers and students around and nearby the houses of the
appellants. Appellants filed writ petition challenging off the order of
respondent no. 3. High Court dismissed the Writ petition in view of the report
of the State Pollution Control Board. Hence the present appeal E
Appellants contended that the noise pollution level was low and thus,
the notice was without any basis; and that they should be given an opportunity
to take remedial measures to reduce the noise level and also be permitted to
place suggestions for consideration of the Authorities.
F
\
Disposing the appeal, the Court

HELD: Appellants are permitted to give a concrete proposal as to how
they would ensure sticking of the norms within two months. The proposal
would be dealt with; a decision to be taken within three months. Further, the
.
~

appellants may move the authorities for making available alternative site and G
the Authorities would consider the feasibility. [Paras 12 and 13) (59-F-G)
_.,)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4533 of2004.

55 H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 07 .10.2003 of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 2898 of f
2003.

Arun Pednekar and Naresh Kumar for the Appellants.

B M.N. Rao, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, S.S. Shinde, Satyajit A. Desai,
Anagha S. Desai, Anmol N. Suryawanshi, Vikram Saluja and Venkateshwara
Rao Anumolu for the Respondents.

Tue Judgment of the Court was delivered by /

c DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order
passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court,

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

2. Appellants are residents of Bhandara since the time of their forefathers.
D They are engaged in the business of manufacturing brass utensils.
Undisputedly they carry on the same business in their respective houses.

3. On 18.7.2003 the Superintendent of Police, Bhandara issued notices
to the appellants directing them to stop their business within two days from
the date of receipt of the order, failing which suitable legal action would be
E taken. Tue reasons disclosed in the notice were that in the process of preparing
brass utensils, noise pollution is created which affects the neighbours, teachers
and students around and nearby the houses of the appellants. Tue appellants
took the stand that they were in business before the opening of the school
in the vicinity of their houses and there cannot be any complaint of noise
pollution against them. On that basis the writ petition was filed impugning
F
order of the Superintendent of Police. Reply affidavit was filed by the said f.
Superintendent of Police as respondent No. 3 in the writ petition indicating
that the mechanical power is used in the production of brass utensils as it
facilitates pressing, embossing, spinning, cutting and buff polishing. It was
stated that because of the aforesaid activities noise pollution in the vicinity
G is caused and the area being thickly and densely populated area, it. was
causing annoyance in addition to noise pollution. The Superintendent of
Police had called for a report from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board,
i...
Nagpur (in short the 'Board') who had also suggested that the noise level
in the area is very high and amounted to nuisance.
H 4. In view of the above position, the writ petition was di!;missed.
SHEIKHIKRAMSHEIKH ISRAIL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [PASAYAT,J.] 57

5. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellanis submitted A
that the noise pollution level was low and there was marginal variation and,
therefore, the notice issued by the Superintendent is without any basis.

6. Learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra, the Board and the
applicants for intervention supported the order.
B
7. It appears that earlier a writ petition was filed in the Nagpur Bench
of the High Court. In that case applications for interventions were filed on
~ behalf of the school and some local residents. The writ petition was disposed
of granting liberty to the parties to place the materials in support of their
respective stands before the concerned authorities. The Noise Pollution C
(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (in short the 'Rules") have been framed
in exercise of powers conferred by clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 3,
sub section (1) and clause (b) and sub Section (2) of Section 6 and Section
25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (in short the 'Environment Act')
read with Rule 5 of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986 (in short the
'Environment Rules'). D
8. Rules 3, 4 and 6 of the Rules read as follows:

"(3) Ambient air Quality standards in respect of noise for different
areas/zones
E
I) 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.

2) The State Government may categorize the areas into industrial,
commercial, residential or silence areas/zones for the pw-pose of implementation
of noise standards for different areas. F
3) The State Government shall take measures for abatement of noise
including noise emanating from vehicular movements and ensure that the
existing noise levels do not exceed the ambient air quality standards specified
under these rules.
G
4) All development authorities, local bodies and other concerned
authorities while planning developmental activity or carrying out functions
relating to town and country planning shall take into consideration all aspects
of noise pollution as a parameter of quality of life to avoid noise menace and
to achieve the objective of maintaining the ambient air quality standards in H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 5 S.C.R.

A respect of noise.
(
5) An area comprising not less than I00 metres around hospitals,
educational institutions and courts may be declared as silence area/zone for
the purpose of these rules.

B 4) Responsibility as to enforcement of noise pollution control measures:-

1) The noise levels in any area/zone shall not exceed the ambient air
quality standards in respect of noise as specified in the schedule
/

2) The authority shall be responsible for the enforcement of noise
C pollution control measures and the due compliance of the ambient air quality
standards in respect of noise.

6) Consequences of any violation in silence zone/area :-

Whoever, in any place covered under zone/area commits any of the
D following offence, liable for penalty under the provisions of the Act :-
(i) Whoever, plays any music or used 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, or
E
(iii) Whoever, exhibits any mimetic, musical or other performances of a
nature to attract crowds."

9. In the Gazette ofindia : Extraordinary (Part II) it has been notified as .
A
under:
F
Ambient Air Quality Standards in respect of Noise.
Area Category of Limit in db (A) leq*
Code area/zone Day Time Night Tim~
A Industrial Area 75 'Xl
G B Commercial Area 65 55 )

c Residential Area 55 45

D Silence Zone 50 40

H Note:- I. Day time shall mean from 600 a.m. to IO p.m
SHEIKH !KRAM SHEIKH IS RAIL v. STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA (PASAYA T, J.] 59

2. Night time shall mean from 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. A
3. Silence zone is defined as an area comprising not less than JOO metres
around hospitals, educational institutions and courts. The silence zones are
declared as such by the competent authority.
4. Mixed categories of areas may be declared as one of the four above
mentioned categories by the competent authority. B
*. dB(A) Leq denotes the time weighed average of the level of sound
in decibels on scale A which is relatable to human hearing.
A "decibel" is a unit in which noise is measured.
"A" in dB(A) Leq. Denotes the frequency weighting in the measurement C
of noise and corresponds to frequency response characteristics of the human
hearing.
Leq: It is an energy mean of the noise level over a specified period.
IO. The Government of Maharashtra also has empowered the concerned
authority for prohibiting the continuance of music or noise and the power D
includes prevention, prohibition, control or regulation of the carrying on in/
-' or upon any premises of trade, avocation or operation or process. resulting
in/or attended with noise.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that they should be
given an opportunity to reduce the noise level and remedial measures can be E
taken and suggestions in this regard shall be placed for consideration of the
authorities.
12. In the circumstances we direct that the appellants are permitted to
give a concrete proposal as to how they shall ensure sticking of the norms
4. within two months. The proposal shall be dealt with; a decision to be taken F
within three months.
13. The appellants may, if so advised, and as contended move the
authorities for making available alternative site. The feasibility by such a
request shall be duly considered by the authorities.
14. For a period of three months the interim orders, passed by this Court G
on 15.12.2003, shall be continued. By giving this interim protection it shall not
be considered as if we have expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

15. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

NJ. Appeal disposed. H