SHEIKH IKRAM SHEIKH ISRAIL AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 55 · Decided: 12-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
SHEIKH IKRAM SHEIKH ISRAIL AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
APRIL 12, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
"). 
Environmental law-Noise Pollution-Manufacturing of brass utensils 
by residents of locality in their houses-Resulting in noise pollution-Issuance 
of notice to stop the activities-Writ petition by manufacturers, dismissal of- c 
On appeal held: In view of the opportunity sought by residents to reduce 
noise level, residents to give concrete proposal regarding control of noise 
pollution-Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. 
Appellants are engaged in manufacturing of brass utensils in their 
respective houses at place B. Respondent No. 3-Superintendent of Police issued D 
notices to the appellants directing them to stop their business since noise 
~' 
pollution was created in the process of preparing brass utensils which affected 
the neighbours, teachers and students around and nearby the houses of the 
appellants. Appellants filed writ petition challenging off the order of 
respondent no. 3. High Court dismissed the Writ petition in view of the report 
E 
of the State Pollution Control Board. Hence the present appeal 
Appellants contended that the noise pollution level was low and thus, 
the notice was without any basis; and that they should be given an opportunity 
to take remedial measures to reduce the noise level and also be permitted to 
place suggestions for consideration of the Authorities. 
F 
\ 
Disposing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Appellants are permitted to give a concrete proposal as to how 
they would ensure sticking of the norms within two months. The proposal 
would be dealt with; a decision to be taken within three months. Further, the G 
~ 
appellants may move the authorities for making available alternative site and 
. 
_.,) 
the Authorities would consider the feasibility. [Paras 12 and 13) (59-F-G) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4533 of2004. 
55 
H 
56 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 07 .10.2003 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 2898 of 
f 
2003. 
Arun Pednekar and Naresh Kumar for the Appellants. 
B 
M.N. Rao, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, S.S. Shinde, Satyajit A. Desai, 
Anagha S. Desai, Anmol N. Suryawanshi, Vikram Saluja and Venkateshwara 
Rao Anumolu for the Respondents. 
Tue Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
/ 
c 
DR. ARIJIT P ASAY AT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order 
passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
2. Appellants are residents of Bhandara since the time of their forefathers. 
D They are engaged in the business of manufacturing brass utensils. 
Undisputedly they carry on the same business in their respective houses. 
3. On 18.7.2003 the Superintendent of Police, Bhandara issued notices 
to the appellants directing them to stop their business within two days from 
E 
the date of receipt of the order, failing which suitable legal action would be 
taken. Tue reasons disclosed in the notice were that in the process of preparing 
brass utensils, noise pollution is created which affects the neighbours, teachers 
and students around and nearby the houses of the appellants. Tue appellants 
took the stand that they were in business before the opening of the school 
in the vicinity of their houses and there cannot be any complaint of noise 
F pollution against them. On that basis the writ petition was filed impugning 
order of the Superintendent of Police. Reply affidavit was filed by the said 
f. 
Superintendent of Police as respondent No. 3 in the writ petition indicating 
that the mechanical power is used in the production of brass utensils as it 
facilitates pressing, embossing, spinning, cutting and buff polishing. It was 
stated that because of the aforesaid activities noise pollution in the vicinity 
G is caused and the area being thickly and densely populated area, it. was 
causing annoyance in addition to noise pollution. The Superintendent of 
Police had called for a report from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, 
i... 
Nagpur (in short the 'Board') who had also suggested that the noise level 
in the area is very high and amounted to nuisance. 
H 
4. In view of the above position, the writ petition was di!;missed. 
SHEIKHIKRAMSHEIKH ISRAIL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [PASAYAT,J.] 
57 
5. In support of the appeal learn

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