IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6341 of 2009 Between: A.Rajashekar, S/o. Sri A.Suryanarayana, R/o. Ragolu, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam [A.P.,] 2 The A.P., Pollution Control Board, Rep by its Executive Engineer, Vizinagaram, A.P. 3 Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam, A.P. 4 The Gram Panchayat, Rep by its V.R.O., Ragolu, Srikakulam District [A.P.] 5 M/s Sri Lakshmi Bhavani Beverages [Water Plant] Rep by its Proprietor, Smt Lakshmi Bhavani, W/o. Sri Murali, R/o. Rajolu, Srikakulam District [A.P] .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not taking appropriate steps to stop and vacate the plant especially in protecting the petitioner and the people residing in and around the 5th respondents Beverages (Water Plant) as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to 4 to take appropriate steps in vacating the 5th respondent Beverages (Water Plant) from the petitioner's locality with immediate effect Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Tene Pandu Ranga Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1: Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy Counsel for Respondent No.3: Government Pleader for Home.\ Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri M. Prabhakar Counsel for Respondent No.5: N.A The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) In this petition, the petitioner has made a grievance that working of respondent No. 5 – industry is resulting into noise pollution. Prayer has been made in the petition that respondent No. 5 should be prevented from making noise. 2. In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, noise level was examined in the presence of representatives of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and a report dated 26-06-2009 has been submitted to this Court along with a letter dated 30-06-2009 addressed by respondent No.3. 3. Upon perusal of the said report, it appears that the noise made by respondent No.5 – industry is within the limit set up by law. Maximum level of noise, which is permitted during daytime is 55 decibels in residential area, whereas level of noise caused because of industry set up by respondent No.5 is 52 decibels near the residence of the petitioner, whereas near a temple it is 50.9 decibels. 4. Thus, upon perusal of the aforestated report, it appears that there is no noise pollution. 5. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has however submitted that the petitioner has also received some information from respondent No. 2 – Board and the said information in the form of report dated 27-05-2009 has been placed before this Court. According to the said report, noise created by respondent No. 5 – industry is 61.5 decibels during the daytime and, therefore, in fact working of respondent No. 5 is resulting into noise pollution. 6. It is pertinent to note that the report submitted by the petitioner with regard to noise level pollution is based on the study made by the concerned authorities on 27-05-2009, whereas the report submitted by the respondent authorities is based on test conducted on 26-06-2009. 7. Thus, it appears that after filing of the petition, respondent No. 5 has tried to control the noise level. 8. Looking to the above fact, in our opinion, the machine of respondent No.5 is not causing noise pollution. 9. It is, however, directed that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall conduct periodical tests for next six months to come. They shall test the noise levels in the vicinity of respondent No. 5 at least once in a month and shall keep the report on record of respondent No.3. If the noise is more than the standards prescribed, appropriate action shall be taken by the concerned respondents against respondent No.5. 10. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th July, 2009 ks