1 cri-pil-15-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITITATION NO. 15 OF 2010 Satpal Singh Chhabra .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Satpal Singh Chhabra, petitioner, party-in-person, present. Mr. P.A. Pol, PP with Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for State. Ms. Sharmila Deshmukh for respondent no.2. Mrs. Smita Gaidhani for respondent no.8. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. OCTOBER 11, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the petitioner, party-in-person. 2. In this petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the substantial prayers i.e. prayer (a) and (c) read as under:- 2 cri-pil-15-10 (a) This Hon’ble Court may please be kind and have mercy and order the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thane to record as how much noise, air pollution is created and dust fiber particles fly in the air when the different sizes of aluminums, rod and bakelite modes with the help of electric cutter machine and hand cutter tools; (c) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent no.8 from cutting the Aluminum and Bakelite sheets. 3. On 9/7/2010, this court directed respondent no.2 to take necessary steps and check the ambient noise level and submit a report within two weeks. The report was submitted and the petitioner was not satisfied. Hence, by order dated 13/9/2010, we directed to depute an officer in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to take the readings of ambient noise levels between 10 a.m. to 11.30 p.m. on two consecutive days after 27/9/2010 and during the hours when all the concerned shops i.e. Shop No.13 (petitioner’s shop) and Shop No.11 (respondent no.8’s shop) 3 cri-pil-15-10 are open. We also directed respondent no.2 to repeat the same exercise jointly with the Deputy Superintendent of Police. 4. Shri D. M. Choukhande, Regional Officer – Thane of the respondent no.2 – Board has filed his affidavit-in-reply and annexed the noise level report on the basis of the readings taken on 5th and 6th October, 2010 and the petitioner has placed before us his written arguments. The report submitted by the respondent no.2 shows that on both the days the ambient noise level standards were between 55 dBA Leq. It has been further stated in the report that respondent no.8 does not have any appliance for cutting the metal/aluminium sheets and he cuts the sheets by an hand operated hacksaw. The report of 6/10/2010 annexed to the affidavit of respondent no.2 shows higher noise levels when the metal sheet is being cut, but the report does indicate that such an activity is not on continuous basis in the shop of respondent no.8 and at the same time both the shops i.e. Shop Nos.13 and 11 are located at the junction of a 9 feet wide road which is a busy road and, therefore, there are higher noise levels. 5. We are satisfied that the reports so submitted do not call for any further inquiry/investigation and, therefore, this petition has in a way 4 cri-pil-15-10 worked out. The reports submitted are not adverse so as to call upon the police to take further actions. 6. Hence, the petition is rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)