IMPORTANT POINT
Writ petition (or PIL) seeking modification in order of injunction passed in earlier writ petition is not maintainable.
Control of noise pollution is a human right.

JUDGMENT: S.B. SINHA, J :

1. Leave granted.

2. Whether musical functions in an open theatre being Rang Bhavan should be allowed to be carried on or not despite the fact that it is situate within 100 meters of an educational institution and a hospital, is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 16.08.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2257 of 2004.

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Rang Bhavan is an institution owned and run by the State of Maharashtra. It is the only open theatre in the city of Mumbai. It is let out on hire for the purpose of holding music and cultural programmes. It charges a meagre amount for allowing private parties to hold functions. It has a sitting capacity of 4000 persons. It is stated that the worlds greatest artists, both Western and Indian, have performed therein. Dr. Yeshwant Trimbak Oke & Ors. filed a public interest litigation for a direction to the State to curb noise pollution in general in the city of Mumbai and particularly during the festive season of Navratri and Ganesh Utsav.

4. On or about 25.09.2003, an order was passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, directing:

"(1) pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, i.e., Writ Petition No. 2053 of 2003, no loudspeaker permission be granted in respect of "Silence Zone" as defined and discussed in the Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000, as amended from time to time.

(2) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, the respondents are directed to issue loudspeaker permission verifying and certifying before granting permission that the loudspeaker will not be used in a designated Silence Zone.

(3) The authorities will also ensure implementation and observance of the conditions mentioned in the permission.

(4) It is also clarified that in case the petitioners point out that there is violation at any place, the authorities will take appropriate action in accordance with law."

5. A review application was filed thereagainst by the State of Maharashtra. The submission made by the learned Advocate General for the State therein as recorded by the High Court in its order dated 19.12.2003 is as under:

"4. The learned Advocate General submitted that reading Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") with the Schedule thereto, it is clear that the silence zone which has been defined in Note to the Schedule would not include hospitals, educational institutions, Courts, religious places or any other area which is declared as such by the Competent Authority, but the prohibition under Rule 6 would apply to the areas comprising not less than 100 metres around such institutions.

" On the said review petition, it was held:

"7. So far as first point is concerned, in our opinion, direction issued by us on September 25, 2003 is clear. Prima facie, it appears to us that the provisions of the Rules would apply to "an area comprising not less than hundred metres around" hospitals, educational institutions, Courts, religious places or any other area which is declared as such by the competent authority. In our view, this would be in consonance with the phraseology used in clause (i) of Rule 6 which totally prohibits playing of "any music" or using of "any sound amplifiers". Had it been the intention of the Rule making authority, it would not have used the expression "an area comprising not less than 100 metres around hospitals, educational institutions, Court, religious places, etc. Moreover, such interpretation would also permit activities within those institutions in accordance with law.

6. At the same time, however, the apprehension voiced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has also been taken care of. It cannot be considered that with regard to such organizations, institutions, etc. there is neither any standard nor limit whatsoever. In respect of such institutions