Bombay High Court
Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat Thou ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Their ... on 20 August, 2024
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2024:BHC-AS:33296-DB
aspil191-2023-J-F.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.191 OF 2023
Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat,
Grahak Bhavan, 634, Sadashiv Peth,
Pune 411 030
through their Sanghatak
Digitally
ATUL
signed by
ATUL
GANESH
Contact No.94225 02315
GANESH KULKARNI
KULKARNI Date:
2024.08.20
14:48:19
+0530
Email ID: [email protected] ... Petitioner
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through their Chief Secretary
Mantralaya, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 400 032
(Through Government Pleader
Office - Bombay High Court)
2. Department of Law and Justice,
State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Mantralaya,
Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 032
(Through Government Pleader
Office - Bombay High Court)
3. Department of Environment and
Climate Change,
State of Maharashtra,
Through their Director,
Mantralaya, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 400 032
(Through Government Pleader
Office - Bombay High Court)
4. Maharashtra Pollution Control
Board, Through their Member
Secretary, Kalpataru Point,
1
::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 09:07:12 :::
aspil191-2023-J-F.doc
3rd and 4th Floor, Opp. PVR Cinema
Sion Circle, Mumbai - 400 022
(Through Government Pleader
Office - Bombay High Court)
5. Central Pollution Control Board
Union of India
Through their Member Secretary
Parivesh Bhavan, East Arjun Nagar,
Delhi 110 032.
(Through Union of India Pleader -
Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai)
6. Police Department - the State
of Maharashtra,
Through their Director General
of Police,
Maharashtra Police Head Quarters,
Shahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Colaba,
Mumbai -Maharashtra 400 001
(Through Government Pleader/
PP Office - Bombay High Court) ... Respondents
Mr. Sattyendra Muley for the petitioner (through V.C.)
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. O.A.
Chandurkar, Additional G.P., Mrs. G.R. Raghuwanshi,
Additional G.P., and Mr. Ashutosh Mishra for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6 - State.
Mr. Abhinandan B. Vagyani with Mr. C.M. Lokesh for
respondent No.5.
CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ &
AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : AUGUST 16, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : AUGUST 20, 2024
2
::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 09:07:12 :::
aspil191-2023-J-F.doc
JUDGMENT:
(Per Amit Borkar, J.)
1. This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, wherein the petitioner, claiming to be a social service
organization, seeks relief by requesting the Court to summon
records and an action taken report pursuant to the judgment
of this Court in Dr. Mahesh Vijay Bedekar v. The State of
Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 8894.
The petitioner further prays for enforcement of the Noise
Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, and the
relevant provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Additionally, the petitioner seeks a total ban on the sale,
lease, import, and use of loudspeakers and sound systems
that emit noise levels exceeding the permissible limits
specified in the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000. The petitioner
also requests a directive for the submission of a report
regarding the use of hazardous light laser beams during
various processions and ceremonies and seeks a complete ban
on the sale and use of such hazardous laser beams in public
places until the State formulates appropriate regulations.
2. The petitioner claims to be a social service organization
reputed for its tireless efforts in addressing issues concerning
aspil191-2023-J-F.doc
consumer rights, public awareness of laws, equitable water
supply, and the protection and overall improvement of civic
amenities across the country. The petitioner asserts that,
based on a report published by the College of Engineering,
Pune, and its analysis, the noise pollution levels in Pune
reached hazardous levels during the Ganesh Festival in 2023.
The prescribed norms for residential areas are 55 decibels
during the day and 45 decibels at night. However, during the
2023 Ganesh Festival, the average noise pollution level from
4:00 a.m. until midnight was approximately 101.3 decibels in
the residential areas of Pune City.
3. Relying on the judgment in Dr. Mahesh Vijay Bedekar,
the petitioner contends that despite specific directions issued
by this Court, they have not been implemented in their true
letter and spirit. Furthermore, the petitioner argues that a
new trend involving the use of light laser beams, which are
dangerous to human eyes, has emerged during the recent
Ganesh Festival. It is alleged that several individuals have
permanently lost their eyesight due to exposure to such light
laser beams. Additionally, commercial establishments in the
Pune District continue to use sound systems that emit
dangerously high levels of noise, infringing on the residents'
aspil191-2023-J-F.doc
right to sleep in nearby residential zones. The petitioner
asserts that the authorities responsible for enforcement have
failed in their duty to curb violations of noise pollution in the
State of Maharashtra. Consequently, the petitioner seeks relief
in the form of a report and data concerning noise pollution
complaints over the past two years and the action taken on
such complaints.
4. Mr. Kakade, the learned Government Pleader, upon
instructions, made a categorical statement that the directions
issued by this Court in paragraph 102 of the judgment in Dr.
Mahesh Vijay Bedekar have been duly complied with in both
letter and spirit. This statement is recorded by the Court.
5. Moreover, the reliefs sought in prayers (a) to (c) appear
to be in the nature of a roving inquiry without the
independent presentation of factual material. The petitioner is
required to independently establish a prima facie case and
cannot seek an order from this Court to summon records and
an action taken report in the context of the judgment in
Dr.Mahesh Vijay Bedekar. Seeking data on all complaints of
noise pollution over the past two years and a report on the
action taken on such complaints would also constitute a
aspil191-2023-J-F.doc
speculative inquiry. The petitioner cannot seek a writ of
mandamus to initiate an unfocused and speculative inquiry
into whether there has been violation of the directions issued
by this Court without presenting prima facie evidence of such
violation as mentioned in paragraph 102 of the said judgment.
6. The legal position in this regard is well settled, whereby
this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
should refrain from embarking upon a speculative inquiry. The
Supreme Court, in A. Hamsaveni & Ors. v. State of Tamil
Nadu, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 51, emphasized that a
petition can only succeed if the petitioner independently
establishes a case and proceedings before Court cannot be
used as a vehicle for a roving inquiry to substantiate a claim.
Similarly, in the case of N.K. Singh v. Union of India , reported
in (1994) 6 SCC 98, it was held that a speculative inquiry is
neither warranted nor justified within the scope of judicial
review concerning the private rights of an individual.
Reference may also be made to Ratan Chandra Sammanta v.
Union of India, reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 415, where it
was reiterated that a writ is issued in favor of a person who
has an established right and not for the purpose of initiating a
speculative inquiry, which could potentially lead to
aspil191-2023-J-F.doc
infringement of rights. It was further held that where no
concrete steps have been taken to enforce a claim and no
substantive material has been presented before the Court, it
would be hazardous to entertain a plea that seeks to compel
the respondents to produce their records.
7. However, considering the nature of the issue raised by
the petitioner and the directions issued by this Court in
Dr.Mahesh Vijay Bedekar, it is clarified that paragraph 102 of
the judgment in Dr. Mahesh Vijay Bedekar shall be complied
with by all concerned parties mentioned in the said judgment
in its letter and spirit. In the event of willful disobedience of
the directions issued by this Court in paragraph 102, it shall
be open for all aggrieved parties to approach the appropriate
Court through appropriate legal proceedings as permitted by
law.
8. The next issue raised by the petitioner pertains to the
use of light laser beams in public places. According to the
petitioner, there is currently no law in force specifically
regulating the use of such light laser beams. In absence of
any specific legislation or regulation governing the light laser
beams, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a detailed
aspil191-2023-J-F.doc
representation to the appropriate Statutory/Administrative
authorities and/or the State Government, requesting
immediate measures to regulate the use of light laser beams
in public spaces, public gatherings, and events. Furthermore,
it shall be open for the petitioner to bring to the notice of the
Police Authorities the applicability of Section 125 or any other
relevant provision of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, if the
facts justify filing of such a complaint.
9. Accordingly, while keeping the remedies available to all
concerned parties to ventilate their rights arising from the
non-implementation of the directions issued in paragraph 102
of the judgment in Dr. Mahesh Vijay Bedekar open for
ventilation of grievances in the appropriate Court through
appropriate legal proceedings, and subject to the petitioner's
right to make representations regarding the regulation of light
laser beams before the appropriate authority, this public
interest litigation petition is disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
