Balwant Singh vs Commnr. Of Police & Ors

7. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, it is necessary to mention the facts in brief.

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 and would undertake their “Protests March” or "Dharna" or "Procession" for ventilating their grievances. The protestors 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 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.

11. The appellant was one 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, 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).

13. Since the Commissioner of Police did not take any 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 Act”). The NHRC forwarded the appellant's complaint to the Rajasthan 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 with the right of the appellant herein to lead an independent and peaceful life and ensure that :

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 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.

17. The appellant, felt aggrieved, filed intra court appeal 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.

2. The Department of Explosives (DOE) shall 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 chemical used in manufacturing firecrackers.

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.

(iii) Vehicular noise

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.

3. Special public awareness campaigns in anticipation of festivals, events and ceremonial occasions whereat firecrackers are likely to be used, need to be carried out.

(v) Generally

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 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.

28. We, accordingly, direct the respondents to ensure strict 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 prevent/check the noise pollution as directed in the aforesaid directions.

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.

33. We have perused the steps suggested by the State in 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 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) to (d) of the Counter Affidavit extracted above and while ensuring its compliance, if the respondents consider that it 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 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.

November 07, 2014.