IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 3853 of 2009(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. DINESAN, S/O.BHASKARAN, KULATHINTE MELETHIL, EZHAMKULAM PO, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. RENJITH, S/O.RAVI RENJITH BHAVANAM, KULATHINTE MELETHIL, EZHAMKULAM P.O, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. MR.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. ADOOR MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ADOOR. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. SIJI GEORGE, PUTHENVILA THEKKETHIL PALAMUKKU (PAKODE) EZHAMKULAM, ADOOR. R1 BY ADVS. MR.K.SHAJ, MR.SAJJU.S, R2 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER, R3 BY MR. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, S.C, R5 BY ADVS. MR.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, MR.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.3853/2009-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE R.5. DT. 03/01/09. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE MASS PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE R.4. DT. 09/01/09. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN JANMABHUMI DAILY DT. 08/01/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.3853 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.Petitioners reside in ward No.X of Adoor Municipality. The 5th respondent is accused of creating sound pollution by employing loud speakers and drums in the course of prayers. There was certain proceedings before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Ultimately, the issue that requires to be addressed is as to whether there is any polluting activity. The Pollution Control Board authorities had filed a statement on record to the effect that there are two box type loud speakers and a drum inside the building. In paragraph 6 of that report dated 13.3.2009, the Environmental Engineer stated as follows regarding the site inspection conducted on 4.3.2009: “The site was again inspected on 4.3.2009 (Wednesday). Mass prayer was going on and there were about 100 people inside the hall. They WPC.26678/09 2 conduct speeches, songs and mass prayers. Frequently they use drums along with the above programmes. Box type loud speakers are kept inside the hall and noise monitoring was conducted near the residences of the petitioners. Maximum noise level recorded at petitioners house was 65 dB (A). However, in most of the time it was below 62 dB(A). Noise level which do not exceed 10 dB(A) from the permissible levels cannot be considered as serious nuisance. But the petitioners informed that the usual noise will be much more than that experienced during the monitoring. During the monitoring, several other neighbours informed that the noise is intolerable and their children could not study. Continuous exposure to high noise will cause serious health effects and behavioral problems”. 2. Upholding the problem, the Environmental Engineer made the following two suggestions: “(i) Avoid the use of loud speakers and drums during their mass prayers. WPC.26678/09 3 (ii) Restrict the mass prayer timings between 8 am - 6 pm only”. Taking the aforesaid into consideration, it is directed that the Pollution Control Board authorities, particularly the third respondent, shall issue appropriate directions as are necessary to ensure that the activity of the 5th respondent does not generate any pollution and affect normal living conditions of the people of the locality. It would also be open to the third respondent to issue further directions on the basis of any complaint that the petitioners or residents of the locality may make. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.1/12.