Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Church of God (Full Gospel) v. The Government of Tamil Nadu.

Pays/Territoire
Inde
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Fév 28, 2003
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
Madras High Court
Siège de la cour
Madras
Juge
SIVASUBRAMANIAM., K.P.
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Air et atmosphère
Mot clé
Pollution sonore (de l'environnement) Normes acoustiques Bruit des véhicules Émission sonore Bruit des transports aériens
Résumé
The petitioner is an international organisation devoted to religious service,engaged in establishment of Health Care Centres throughout Tamil Nadu and has established 215 Churches in Tamil Nadu. One of them is in an area which falls within industrial and residential area. The fifth respondent filed Crl.O.P.No.61 of 1998 before this Court praying for a direction to the police authorities to take action against the petitioner alleging that there was noise pollution. The petitioner opposed the petition and contended that they have not fixed any loud speaker outside the Church. On 19.4.1992, after taking note of the report submitted by the Pollution Control Board, the Judge held that the noise level was not solely on account of the petitioner's Church but also due to interference of the noise of the vehicles plying on the high road. The police authorities were directed to follow the rules and the directions contained in the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Apparao vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (1995 WLR Page 157). This Court further directed that if there was loud noise exceeding the permitted limits, the Church has to be directed to keep the speakers at lower level. The petitioner appealed before the Supreme Court. which upheld the judgment of this Court by order dated 30.8.2000 and it was held that the directions and the guidelines in Apparao's case and the rules and regulations have to be strictly complied with. By proceedings dated 13.5.1999, the petitioner was informed by the third respondent that the construction put up in the plot was in violation of the approved building plan and that the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.76 dated 27.2.1999 and that the CMDA had also issued directions dated 8.3.1999 for regularisation of constructions already completed. The petitioner was advised to avail the said scheme which will be available only till 29.5.1999 and to seek for regularisation of the construction. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for regularisation of the existing prayer hall and remitted the requisite fee of Rs.1,700/- and a further sum of Rs.11,150/- towards regularisation fee. However, the application was rejected on the ground that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court has been dismissed. The petitioner contends that the reason given by the respondent was baseless as the judgment in the Criminal appeal had absolutely no bearing on the application submitted by the petitioner for regularisation. Thereupon an appeal was filed by the petitioner under Section 113 (A) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 16.4.2001. The first respondent without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, by a short order in G.O.(D) No.594 dated 23.7.2002 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by confirming the order stated above.Hence, the present writ petition. According to the respondents, violation of Pollution Control regulations is also a relevant issue for considering the sanction of planning permission or application for regularisation. Even otherwise,the area being a residential area, no permission can be granted for locating a place of worship. The Court observed that in the previous judgements the only issue which was raised and considered was noise pollution allegedly created by the petitioner/church. All that the petitioner was directed was to lower the noise level and that the usage of the loud speakers and voice amplifiers should strictly conform to the requirements under the Madras Town Nuisance Act, 1889 and Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. Therefore, reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court for rejecting the application for regularisation is very improper and discloses total non application of mind. In this writ petition, this Court is not concerned with such objections considering that the only reason given in the impugned order is the alleged violation of noise pollution control regulations and the order passed by the Supreme Court. No other reasons have been stated. It is certainly open to the respondents to reject the application for regularisation if it does not satisfy the requirements and terms of the scheme for regularisation. The writ petition is allowed subject to the here above observations.
Texte intégral
COU-155940.pdf
Site web
www.indiankanoon.org