ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“10.1 That this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to carry on his business/fabrication workshop situated at Danganiya, Raipur (C.G.), in the interest of justice.

10.2 That his Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to not put any obstruction in carrying on petitioner's fabrication work shop, in the larger interest of justice.

10.3 Any other relief (s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the interest of Justice.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was granted permission to operate a fabrication shop at Shanti Vihar Colony, Danganiya, the objection having been made by few of the residents, the petitioner was served with the notice and off and the shop was being sealed which used to closure of business. He would further submit that the letter dated 26.12.1991 which is issued by the Municipal Corporation about the no objection and the letter dated 05.03.1987 issued by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur would show that the petitioner was granted permission to open a factory at Danganiya ward on his own land. Pursuant thereto the petitioner has opened his shop, therefore, virtually no nuisance was created and the petitioner was well within his legal right to run his shop which cannot be otherwise stopped. He would refer to para 9.6 of the petition and would submit that petitioner's registration was done subsequently on 24.01.2019 which is valid uptill 23.01.2024 for fabrication work on the plot of which the complaint has been made, whereas the Municipal Corporation has intervened in the matter which is offending, whereby the petitioner's right is being restricted to run his business for his livelihood. He would further submit that the like nature of shops are situated and spread all over the city in the residential area and the petitioner is being signally targeted, therefore, there cannot be pick & choose by the Municipal Corporation so as to close down the business of the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3 oppose the arguments and would submit that the Municipal Corporation has not specifically targeted a person but having received the complaint, the shop/factory of the petitioner was inspected and it was found that the noise pollution caused by the shop/factory was/is beyond the permissible sound limit in residential area and it falls within the ambit of nuisance. Consequently, it being the residential area, the petitioner cannot be allowed to operate his factory in the said premises which causes nuisance by sound pollution in the residential area. He would further submit that in view of the direction issued by the State that like nature of pollution may not be there, the Municipal Corporation is ready to carryout the survey about the engineering and fabrication units which causes sound pollution and which are situated in the residential area as per the direction of the State dated 27.03.2019 & 25.02.2019, therefore, no prejudice can be said to have been done to petitioner by targeting him alone.

5. Learned counsel for the intervener refers to the document filed along with the application and opposes the argument of the petitioner and would submit that the area being a residential area, repeated complaints were made by all the residents which would be evident from Annexure I-1. He would further submit that on a complaint made, the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board had inspected the premises and found the sound pollution which is caused by the fabrication and cutting of the irons comes beyond the permissible limits which causes noise pollution. Since it situates within the residential area, the fabrication work in the complained place cannot be allowed to continue.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

7. The petitioner was initially granted permission t