Back
1999 Supreme(Cal) 594
High Court Of Calcutta
S. B. SINHA, RANAJIT KUMAR MITRA
MOHAN FIREWORKS - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. 2272 Of 1997
Decided On : 10/14/1999
The West Bengal Pollution Control Board (WBPPCB) has the authority to impose a ban on the use of fireworks that generate noise exceeding 90 Db (A) impulse noise at 5 meters from the source under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986.
Headnote:
FIREWORKS - NOISE POLLUTION - REGULATION - WEST BENGAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD - AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE BAN - ENVIRONMENTAL (PROTECTION) ACT, 1986 - AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981 - VALIDITY OF BAN - RES JUDICATA - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Manufacturers of fireworks challenged a notification issued by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board (WBPPCB) placing a maximum permissible noise level for fireworks at 90 Db (A) impulse noise at 5 meters from the source. They sought an order permitting them to sell and/or dispose of their existing stock of fireworks.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the validity of the ban on the use of fireworks that generate noise exceeding 90 Db (A) impulse noise at 5 meters from the source. It held that the WBPPCB had the authority to impose the ban under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, and that the ban was necessary to protect public health and the environment from noise pollution.
Issues: 1. Whether the WBPPCB had the authority to impose a ban on the use of fireworks that generate noise exceeding 90 Db (A) impulse noise at 5 meters from the source? 2. Whether the ban was necessary to protect public health and the environment from noise pollution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the WBPPCB had the authority to impose the ban under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986. It noted that the 1981 Act defines "air pollution" as "the presence in the atmosphere of any air pollutant," and that "air pollutant" means "any solid, liquid or gaseous substance present in the atmosphere in such concentration as may be or tend to be injurious to human beings or other living creatures or plants or property or environment." The court also noted that the 1986 Act defines "environmental pollution" as "the presence in the environment of any environmental pollutant," and that "environmental pollutant" means "any solid, liquid or gaseous substance present in such concentration as may be, or tend to be, injurious to environment." The court held that noise pollution falls within the definitions of "air pollution" and "environmental pollution," and that the WBPPCB therefore had the authority to regulate noise pollution. 2. The court held that the ban was necessary to protect public health and the environment from noise pollution. It noted that noise pollution can cause a variety of health problems, including hearing loss, sleep disturbance, and cardiovascular problems. The court also noted that noise pollution can damage the environment, by disturbing wildlife and causing stress to plants.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the ban on the use of fireworks that generate noise exceeding 90 Db (A) impulse noise at 5 meters from the source.
( 1 ) THE petitioners who are manufacturers of various types of fire works, filed this writ application questioning a notification dated 3. 10. 1997 as contained in Annexure 'l' to the writ application whereby and whereunder the maximum permissible noise level of the fire works at the time of bursting was placed upto 90 Db (A) impulse noise at 5 meters from the source. It has also sought for an order permitting them to sell and/or dispose of the existing stock of fire-works.
( 2 ) THE fact of the matter is not in dispute.
( 3 ) A bench of this Court dealing with environmental matters considered the issue as regard the fixation of noise level in Om Birangana Religious Society v. State of West Bengal and Ors. C. O. No. 4303 (W) of 1995 as also in W. P. No. 2725 of 1996, Barrabazar Fire Works Dealers Association and Ors. v. Commissioner of Police. The said writ applications had been disposed of.
( 4 ) PURSUANT to or in furtherance of the directions issued in the aforementioned case the impugned notification was issued ny West Bengal Pollution Control Board in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and in terms of the order passed by this Court in the aforementioned cases.
( 5 ) IN the said applications the Petitioners and Others questioned the authority of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board as also the Commissioner of Police to impose any ban on manufacturers sell or use of certain items of fire works relying on or on the basis of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The said matters were disposed of by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Burrabazar Fire Works Dealers Association and Ors. v. The Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and Ors. , reported in Air 1998 Cal 121. The Court lamented the role of the State Pollution Control Board in fixing the limit in view of the fact that sound pollution was a global problem, and keeping in view its earlier decision in Om Birangana Religious Society v. State reported in (1996) 100 CWN 617 the Court had directed it to fix up appropriate noise level so that the citizens' right to sleep, right to speak, right to read, right to transit, right to think are not forcibly taken away by the pollutants.
( 6 ) THE Court considered the views of experts in the field as regard the adverse effects on human beings' mind and body caused by such sound pollutions in the following terms: -"sounds created by fire works, loud speakers, air-crafts, railways are all the products of the technological age and high level of continuous sounds damages hearing and that there cannot be any two opinion about it. From the journals and the reports placed before this Court, it is clearly evident that several millions of people in different parts of the world had their hearing damages because of generating of these sounds. The noise not only creates pollution but it is a source of annoyance. Noise is also created by traffic and noise also disturbs sleep. In our country the people have the right to sleep peacefully. A citizen too have right to a decent environment as highlighted by the Supreme Court in various decisions which are all well known in the field of pollution. The effect of bad night sleep as highlighted by an eminent scientist in the field Ficna Godlee in his article in British Medical Journal, in which it was stated that noise can have positive effects on health. The effect of a bad night sleep includes mood change, reduce cardiovascular performance and poor performance at intellectual and mechanical tasks and it was further observed, a recent review of research into noise and sleep recommends that sound at night in sleeping quarters should not exceed 45 db (A ). It was held that noise also adversely affects behaviour, increasing anxiety and reducing the incidence of helpful behaviour. Levels of aggression are increased by loud
