Back
1999 Supreme(Mad) 1116
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH
The Southern Associates - Rep. by its Proprietor N.P. Chandranaihan
Versus
The Appellate Authority/The Secretary to Government and Environment & Forest Department & Others
W.P. Nos. 14924 and 14925 of 1999 and W.M.P. Nos. 21571 to 21573 of 1999
Decided On :Decided on: 29-10-1999
For the Petitioner:K.M. Vijayan, Senior Counsel for R. Saravanakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: D. Murugesan, Government Pleader, B. Shanthakumar, Senior Standing Counsel for TNPCB, A.L. Somayaji, Senior Counsel.
The TNPCB cannot arbitrarily revise the noise level for an industrial unit without providing any convincing reason. The closure of an industrial unit is not justified if it is located in a mixed industrial and residential area and the accepted noise level for such areas is not exceeded.
Headnote:
AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981 - SECTION 31 - CONSENT ORDER - NOISE LEVEL - INDUSTRIAL AREA - MIXED RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREA - ACCEPTED NOISE LEVEL - REVISION OF NOISE LEVEL - CLOSURE OF UNIT - JUSTIFICATION - LEGAL PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a forging unit industry, was located in a mixed industrial and residential area. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) issued a consent order to the petitioner, stipulating a noise level of 75 dB(A) during daytime and 70 dB(A) during nighttime. However, the TNPCB later revised the noise level to 55 dB(A), which is the prescribed limit for residential areas. The petitioner challenged the revised noise level and the closure of its unit by the TNPCB.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the TNPCB did not provide any convincing reason for revising the noise level from 75 dB(A) to 55 dB(A). The court also noted that the petitioner's unit was located in a mixed industrial and residential area, and that the accepted noise level for such areas was 75 dB(A).
Issues: 1. Whether the TNPCB was justified in revising the noise level from 75 dB(A) to 55 dB(A) without providing any convincing reason? 2. Whether the closure of the petitioner's unit was justified in light of the fact that it was located in a mixed industrial and residential area and the accepted noise level for such areas was 75 dB(A)?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the TNPCB was not justified in revising the noise level from 75 dB(A) to 55 dB(A) without providing any convincing reason. The court also held that the closure of the petitioner's unit was not justified in light of the fact that it was located in a mixed industrial and residential area and the accepted noise level for such areas was 75 dB(A).
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's writ petitions and quashed the TNPCB's order revising the noise level and closing the petitioner's unit.
The prayer in W.P. No. 14924/99 is for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, the second respondent herein, relating to its proceedings dated 31.8.1999 No. R2/TNPCB/F. 2719/TLR/RS/A/99-1 and to quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.
2. W.P. No. 14925/99 is also for the issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Appellate Authority, namely, the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Environment and Forest Department, the first respondent herein, bearing date 29.7.1999 and made in proceedings C. No. 14146/ECJ/99 confirming in so far as it relates to condition No. 17 found in Annexure No. I of the consent Order No. 12338, dated 26.4.1999 issued by the second respondent Pollution Control Board - vide proceedings R-2/TNPCB/F.2719/TLR/RS/A/99, dated 26.4.1999.
3. The petitioner is the same in both the Writ Petitions. It is a Forging Unit Industry engaged in forging automobiles spares, thermal station accessories, bolts and nuts, track pins etc. weighing 100 gms. to 6 kgs. with customers ranging from Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Bharath Heavy Electricals Ltd., Hyderabad, Heavy Vehicle Factory, Avadi, Brakes India Ltd., S & S and Power and Switch Gear Ltd., T.I.I.C. of India Ltd., etc. The Industry was commenced in the year 1992. Nearly Rs. 301akhs had been invested by the petitioner-Industry in the unit after obtaining loans from T.I. Cycles etc. The officials of the second respondent Board sought information regarding the details of the petitioner-Industry in June, 1993 and the details were furnished by the petitioner on 25.6.1993. There was a lot of correspondence between the petitioner-Unit and the Board and several measures were taken to reduce the vibration and noise level. However, the second respondent-Board, at the instance of some vested interest, initiated proceedings for the closure of the Unit necessitating the filing of a Writ Petition W.P. No. 888/96 challenging the order of closure passed by the second respondent. On 19.6.1996, this Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the second respondent to dispose of the consent application. The consent application was rejected by the second respondent and the Unit was directed to be closed. The appeal filed before the Appellate Authority under Section 31 was allowed on 20.8.1997 directing the second respondent-Board to grant consent to the petitioner-Unit on the ground that the Unit was located in a mixed industrial and residential area and the accepted noise level is 65 dB(A) to 75 dB(A). This was done after a scientific survey was conducted by the Indian Institute of Technology and Anna University and taking note of the Industrial and residential area. Again on 13.12.1998, the second respondent ordered closure of the Unit and directed the electricity service connection to be disconnected. There was no notice given prior to the order of the closure. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 20890/98. On 24.12.1998, this Court ordered notice of motion and granted stay of operation of the order for three weeks. On 30.1.1999, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. On 10.3.1999, the first respondent Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of closure passed by the second respondent. However, the second respondent while granting consent for the period upto 30.6.1999 added a condition as condition No. 17 stipulating that noise level abutting the residential area should not exceed 55 dB(A). As the particular condition imposed by the second respondent was arbitrary and without any basis, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority for removal of the said clause in the consent order. However, on 29.7.1999, the appeal was dismissed. As against the dismissal of the said appeal, W.P. No. 14925/99 has been filed.
4. While the appeal was pending before the first respondent, the second respondent issu
