District Magistrate, SSP Will Be Personally Liable If Directions To Curb Noise Pollution Not Followed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reiterates
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reiterated that the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police will be held personally liable if the authorities fail to ensure due compliance of the directions issued by it in 2019 to curb Noise Pollution.In 2019, the Court had issued set of guidelines to ensure loud speakers are not used at night from 10 am to 6 pm and peripheral noise level...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reiterated that the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police will be held personally liable if the authorities fail to ensure due compliance of the directions issued by it in 2019 to curb Noise Pollution.
In 2019, the Court had issued set of guidelines to ensure loud speakers are not used at night from 10 am to 6 pm and peripheral noise level of a privately owned sound system does not exceed 5dB(A) more than the ambient air quality standard specified for the area.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal said if the police fails to perform its statutory by filing FIR against the violators then the aggrieved person is free to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C (Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)."
However, the aforesaid direction does not absolve the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police since they have been held to be personally liable in terms guidelines issued by the High Court in 2019.
"The District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police are directed to be vigilant and on any violation pointed out by any citizen of any District of the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh, appropriate steps shall be taken in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible," added the Court.
These observations were made while hearing the plea to curb noise pollution from loudspeakers installed in a Gurudwara in Ambala. The Court had expanded the scope and also impleaded the State of Punjab for giving its report whether the Reet Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others is being implemented.
After hearing the submissions, the Court said that it would be appropriate that since noise pollution is part of the air pollution and is punishable under the penal provisions of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the concerned jurisdictional Police Station and lodge an FIR in the event of any violation of the guidelines laid down by the Court.
The Court also said that the police must follow the time frame laid down by the Apex Court in 'Lalita Kumari vs. Government of UP', 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 979.
Advocates Abhinav Sood, Nitesh Jhajhria, Mehndi Singhal, Rohit Mittal for petitioner in CWP-6280-2024.
Advocates Nitin Chaudhary, Saurav Bhatia, Kuljinder Singh Billing for prtitionrt in CWP-7741-2024.
Sylvester Stephen, Advocate for petitioner No. 2 to 6 in CWP-7741-2024.
Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Salil Sabhlok, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate for respondent No.3 in CWP-7741-2024.
M.S. Virk, Advocate for the respondent No.7 in CWP-7741-2024.
Mikhail Kad, Advocate for Ashdeep singh, Advocate for respondent No.8 in CWP-7741-2024.
J.S. Wasu, Advocate-intervener in CWP-7741-2024.
Himanshu Arora, Advocate for respondent No.9 in CWP-7741-2024.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 345