FARHD K. WADIA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 140 · Decided: 05-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

e 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 140 
.. 
A 
FARHD K. WADIA 
v. 
-1'"" 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.7131 of 2008) 
r 
DECEMBER 5, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
··-<-,, 
Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 -
.JI 
Control and regulation of noise pollution - Interference by 
c Couri -
Scope -
Held: In respect of noise pollution, 
interference by Court is premised on the basis that a citizen 
.... 
has certain rights being 'necessity of silence', 'necessity of 
... 
sleep', 'process during sleep'·and 'rest', which are biological 
necessities and essential for health - Noise is injurious to 
D human health which is required to be preserved at any cost. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Art.226- Two writ petitions 
- Subsequent writ petition - Maintainability of - Held: Not 
maintainable, when filed to achieve a purpose indirectly which 
E could not be achieved directly in view of .the order passed in . 
the earlier writ petition - Doctrine of comity/amity. 
In an earlier writ petition (public interest litigatfon) 
filed before· the High Court, the petitioners had sought a 
direction to the State to curb noise pollution created by 
F reason of use of loudspeakers in the city of Mumbai, 
l 
particularly during the festive seasons of Navratri and 
'-"-
Ganesh Utsav, in areas which have been and should be · 
declared as silence zone. By an interim order dated 25-
09-2003, the High Court prohibited grant of loudspeaker 
G permission in respect of "silence zone" as defined and 
discussed in the Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) 
•
Rules, 2000, as amended from time to time and on a 
·;A.~ 
~·-
review application being filed thereagainst by the State, 
the Court clarified that the prohibition would apply to 
•
H 
140 
...
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court in the earlier public 
interest litigation, being Writ Petition No. 2053 of 2003, had 
passed an order of injunction. If the said order was 
8 required to be modified or clarified and/or relaxation was 
to be prayed for and granted in regard to Rang Bhavan, 
the appellant should have filed an application in the said 
proceeding. An independent public interest litigation to 
obtain a relief which would be contrary to and 
C inconsistent with the order of injunction passed by the 
court was not maintainable. Inter alia, the doctrine of 
comity or amity demands the same. It was not that the 
appellant was not aware of the said order. The premise 
on which the appellant's application was rejected was the 
said order dated 25.09.2003 passed in the said Writ 
D Petition No. 2053 of 2003. The State of Maharashtra felt 
itself and in fact was bound by the order dated 25.09.2003 
and as such filed an application for modification in the 
said Writ Petition No. 2053 of 2003, which was not 
allowed. The High Court, while passing its interim order 
E dated 25.09.2003, did not state that silence zone was 
required to be declared, but passed the order of restraint 
in respect of silence zone, as 'defined and discussed in 
the Rules'. The parties thereto and particularly the State 
of Maharashtra understood the said order in that light. 
F One fails to understand as to on what premise the writ 
petition could have been entertained by the High Court. 
The writ petition was filed to achieve a purpose indirectly 
which coufd not be achieved directly. [Paras 14, 15 and 
17] [149-E-G; 152-A-B] 
G 
H 
1.2. Interference by the court in respect of noise 
pollution is premised on the basis that a citizen has 
certain rights being 'necessity of silence', 'necessity of 
sleep', iprocess during sleep' and 'rest', which are 
biological necessities and essential for health. Silence is 
FARHD K. WADIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
143 
considered to be golden. It is considered to be one of the 
A 
~-
human rights as noise is injurious to human health which 
is required to be preserved at any cost. This Court in 
various matters have also taken suo motu cognizance as 
regards noise pollution and passed orders from time to 
time. The State Government is bound also by the order 
B 
of this Court besides the order passed by the High Court. 
If any order of relaxation and/ or modification is required 
'\. 
to be passed, it is only to be passed by this Court and 
the High,Court in the aforementioned two writ petitions. 
A separate writ petition thus, was not maintainable. [Paras c 
18, 20 and 23] [152-A-C; 153-D; 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.