JUDGMENT :

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1. This case has been nominated to this Court by orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice (under Chapter VIII Rule 3 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, as applicable to the Uttarakhand High Court), for a third opinion since there was a difference of opinion on a point, between the two learned Judges of the Division Bench, while hearing an application.

2. A Public Interest Litigation (WPPIL No. 112 of 2015 i.e. the present writ petition) was filed before this Court, where the petitioner alleged that the industrial waste of respondent no. 4 (the polluting industry) was seeping into the adjoining land of his school and has swept the playgrounds of the school as well as its agricultural land. The water and the waste, it was alleged, are poisonous and the act of the respondent is in violation of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

3. The Division Bench (of Hon'ble Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. and Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, J.), while hearing the matter chose to enlarge the scope of the petition, and took a judicial notice of the fact that is there is not only water pollution but air pollution as well in the State, which is not being checked by the authorities. The petition was then disposed of by the Court by giving a number of directions to the State Authorities. For our purposes, what is relevant here is the direction contained in para (i), which is regarding noise pollution and the permissible sound limits. Direction (i) reads as under:-

"(i) The State Government is directed to ensure that no loudspeaker or public address system shall be used by any person including 2 religious bodies in Temples, Mosques and Gurudwaras without written permission of the authority even during day time, that too, by getting an undertaking that the noise level shall not exceed more than 5dB (A) peripheral noise level."

(emphasis provided)

4. The above order was passed on 19.06.2018. Now nearly two years later (on 16.05.2020), an application was filed before this Court by one Sri. Munawar Ali, who is a member of Uttarakhand Waqf Board. He states his position to be of a social worker and a "mutawalli", and according to him he represents all the "Mutawallies" of the State, since he was elected as a member of the State Waqf Board by the "Mutawallies" of all the Waqfs in the State of Uttarakhand. His grievance was that in view of the directions given in the PIL by the Division Bench of this Court (stated above), in which he was not a party, the district administration is prohibiting him from using loudspeakers in the Mosque. The permissible limit of sound i.e. 5dB (A), effectively means that loudspeaker cannot operate. He has been practically stopped from using a loudspeaker in a Mosque!

5. The directions of the Division Bench contained in its direction No. (i), are two fold. Firstly loudspeakers or public address systems can be used by a person, including any religious body, only after a written permission has been obtained from the authority, and secondly before getting such permission they will have to give an undertaking that the noise level shall not exceed more than 5 dB (A) peripheral noise level.

6. The error pointed out by the applicant (Sri. Munawar Ali) in the order dated 19.06.2018, was that the ultimate direction given by the Division Bench of this Court contained in Para (i) regarding the permissible noise limits (of 5 dB (A), is not in conformity of what has been discussed and decided in the body of the order. Whereas in the body, it has been discussed that the Regulations known as the "Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, framed under powers conferred by clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 3, sub-section (1) and clause (b) of sub-section (2) Section 6 and Section 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, sets out clearly as to what have to be noise limits. It prescribes limits to the