Environmental Law Final Paper

8/8/2019 Environmental Law Final Paper

1/17

1

Environmental Law

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University

Project Topic Noise pollution and right to make

noise in religious activities

Submitted to Atul Kumar Tiwari (Faculty Member)

Submitted by

Atul Pal

B.A.LL.B(Hons.) VI sem, Section - A

Roll No. 38


2/17

2

TABLE OF CONTENT

y INTRODUCTION

y THE NOISE POLLUTION (REGULATION AND CONTROL) RULES, 2000

y JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS

y RESTRICTED USE OF LOUDSPEAKERS

y FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

y RIGHT TO MAKE NOISE FOR RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES

y CONCLUSION


3/17

3

INTRODUCTION

The word noise is derived from the Latin term "nausea". It has been defined as "unwanted sound,

a potential hazard to health and communication dumped into theenvironment with regard to the

adverseeffect it may have on unwillingears."1

Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound which pleases the listeners is music and that which

causes pain and annoyance is noise. At times, what is music for some can be noise for others.

Section 2 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, includes noise in the

definition of air pollutant. It says

"air pollutant" means anysolid, liquid or gaseoussubstance including noise present in the

atmosphere insuch concentrationas may be or tend to be injurious to human beings or other

livingcreatures orplants orproperty orenvironment

Noise is more than just a nuisance. It constitutes a real and present danger to people's health. Day

and night, at home, at work, and at play, noise can produce serious physical and psychological

stress. None is immune to this stress. Though we seem to adjust to noise by ignoring it, theear,

in fact, never closes and the body still responds-sometimes withextreme tension, as to a strange

sound in the night.2

One of the major sources of noise pollution is through religious gatherings, religious processions

and various other religious activities which take the use of loudspeakers and similarhigh decibel

devices in the process.

The Constitution of India declares that every person has a fundamental right not only to hold

whatever religious belief but also to express his beliefs in such overt acts, as are prescribed by

his religion and propagate its tenets among others.

1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_pollution as visited on march12th, 2010.2Shyam Divan & Armin Rosencranz,Environment lawandPolicyin India (New Delhi, Oxford India Paperbacks,

2002)


4/17

4

The state is not supposed to interfere orgiving any discriminatory treatment to the followers of

any religion. But when the question of propagating and practice is concerned, there are a few

exce ptions to this freedom. The exercise of this right is, however subject to public order,

morality and public health. Here the Constitution succinctly expresses the limitations on

religious liberty that has been evolved by judicial pronouncements. The framers of the Indian

constitution attempted to establish a delicate balance between essential interference and impartial

interference on the part of the state. They kept in consideration the possibilities of arising out of

circumstances in which the government may have to impose restraints on the freedoms of

individuals in collective interests.

Pollution being wrongful contamination ofenvironment which causes material injury to the right

of an individual, noise can well be regarded as a pollutant because it contaminates theenvironment, causes nuisance and affects the health of a person and would, therefore, offend

Article 21, if it exceeds a reasonable limit. A number of different rulings have provided

guidelines for what is permissible, and what is not.

THE NOISE POLLUTION (REGULATION AND CONTROL) RULES, 2000

In order to curb thegrowing problem of noise pollution, the Government of India enacted the

Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. Prior to theenactment of these rules noise

pollution was not being dealt specifically by a particular Act. There are provisions in Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973, Indian Penal Code, Torts etc but nowhere it has been dealt

comprehensively.

The rules are an addition to section 3 of the Environmental Protection Act of 1986. The EPA is

the umbrella legislation to deal with the every dynamic issue in relation to environmental

protection. The rules regulate noise levels in industrial, [75 decibels] commercial [65 decibels]

and residential zones [55 decibels], and also establish zones of silence (100 meters) near schools,

courts, hospitals, etc. The rules also assign regulatory authority for these standards to the local

district courts. Some important observations from the rules:


5/17

5

The rules are clearly a ste p forward although they do not attempt to create comprehensive

legislation on noise pollution, and continue with the piece-meal approach to specific problems

encountered over the years. They are furtherevidence that the legislative sidehas often lagged

judges'efforts to create and regulate a fine balance between competing demands - from religion,

the environment, public health, law and order, etc. As a result, notwithstanding progress in

understanding and documenting the various negativeeffects of noise pollution, there is still much

that remains undone.

The main provisions of the noise rules are as under:

1. The State Government may categorize the areas into industrial, commercial, residential orsilence areas/zones for the purpose of implementation of noise standards for different

areas.

2. The ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones has beenspecified for in the Schedule annexed to the Rules.

3. The State Government shall take measures for abatement of noise including noiseemanating from vehicular movements and ensure that the existing noise levels do not

exceed the ambient air quality standards specified under these rules.

4. An area comprising not less than 100 meters around hospitals, educational institutionsand courts may be declared as silence area/zone for the purpose of these rules.

5. A loudspeaker or a public address system shall not be used except after obtaining writtenpermission from the authority and the same shall not be used at night i.e. between

10.00p.m. and 6.00 a.m.

6. A person found violating the provisions as to the maximum noise permissible in anyparticular area shall be liable to be punished for it as per the provisions of these rules and

any other law in force.

In case of Virendra Gaur v. State of Haryana3 after pointing out Article 48-A of the

Constitution about the Directive Principle which requires state to endeavor to protect and

improveenvironment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country, Article 47 which

3 [ 1994 ] Supp 6 SCR 78


6/17

6

requires state to improve public health as its primary duty and Article 51-A (g) which imposes

fundamental duty on every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment

including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures, the

Supreme Court relied upon Article 21 to point out that enjoyment of life and its attainment

including their right to life withhuman dignity encompasses within its ambit, the protection and

preservation ofenvironment, ecological balance free from pollution of air and water, sanitation

without which life cannot beenjoyed. It has been observed that it is imperative duty of state and

also Municipal Council to take adequate measures to promote, protect and improve both the

man-made and the natural environment.

As already seen there are not any comprehensive laws for curbing noise pollution in India. With

regards to Right to make noise for religious activities the law has been laid down through judicialpronouncements. Nowhere has the right to religion and noise pollution have been expressly

defined. The provisions of the Constitution Articles 19, 21 and 25 have to be construed

harmoniously.

The Courts have looked into the Directive Principles of State while considering the

reasonableness of the restrictions They have balanced between the restriction imposed and the

social control envisaged; the prevailing social values as also social needs which are intended to

be satisfied by restrictions imposed have been borne in mind. The courts have always harped on

the point that there must be a direct and proximate nexus or a reasonable connection between the

restrictions imposed and the object sought to be achieved.

In has been held that use of mechanical instruments like loudspeakers and amplifiers is not

covered by theguarantee of freedom of speech and expression. The courts have also legitimized

seeking permission for using loud-speaker as not infringement of Article 19(1)(a) or Article 25

of the Constitution.4The same logic has been used while deciding whether a person has right to

make noise under right to religion.

4Rajni Kant Vermav. State, MANU/UP/0084/1958


7/17

7

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS

It is generally seen that n cases where there arehuge religious celebrations, lots of loudspeakers,

sound mixers and loud musical instruments are used. This leads to a lot of inconvenience to the

general public not part of the celebrations. The courts have taken a strict view with regards to the

noise created by such acts. Public interest has always preceded religious interest.

RESTRICTED USE OF LOUDSPEAKERS

The activism regarding the noise pollution can be traced way back to 1952 where the Bombay

High Court in the case ofState of Bombay v Narasu Appa Mali5

asked authorities to regulate

the use of loudspeakers during night when the Ganesh and Navratri festivals were being

celebrated. The Court ordered the strict implementation of Environmental Acts, ruling that the

means of celebration of festivals must not disturb the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood.

In Rajni Kant Verma v. State6, it has been held that use of mechanical instruments like

loudspeakers and amplifiers is not covered by the guarantee of freedom of speech and

expression. The learned Judge further held that a bye-law of a municipality which requires

permission of the Executive Officer for using a loud-speaker does not infringe Article 19 (1)(a)

of the Constitution.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

In P.A. Jacob v. theSuperintendent of Police,7

it was said that the right to speech implies, the

right to silence. It implies freedom, not to listen, and not to be forced to listen. The right

comprehends freedom to be free from what one desires to be free from. Free speech is not to be

treated as a promise to everyone with opinions and beliefs, to gather at any place and at any time

and express their views in any manner. The right is subordinate to peace and order. A person can

decline to read a publication, or switch off a radio or a television set. But, he cannot prevent the

sound from a loudspeaker reachinghim. He could be forced to hear what, he wishes not, to hear.

That will be an invasion ofhis right to be let alone, to hear what he wants to hear, or not to hear,

5AIR 1952 Bom 826 AIR 1958 All. 360.7 MANU/KE/0001/1993


8/17

8

what he does not wish to hear. One may put his mind orhearing to his own uses, but not that of

another. Nonehas a right to trespass on the mind orear of another and commit auricular or visual

aggression. A loudspeaker is mechanical device, and it has no mind or thought process in it.

Recognition of the right of speech orexpression is recognition accorded to a human faculty.

A right belongs to human personality, and not to a mechanical device. One may put his faculties

to reasonable uses. But, he cannot put his machines to any use he likes. He cannot use his

machines to injure others. Intervention with a machine is not intervention with, or invasion of a

human faculty or right. No mechanical device can be upgraded to a human faculty. A computer

or a robot cannot be conceded the right under Article 19 (though they may be useful to man to

express his faculties). No more, a loudspeaker. The use of a loudspeaker may be incidental to the

exercise of the right. But, its use is not a matter of right, or part of the right".

Thus the Supreme Court rulinghelped make a clear position on freedom ofexpression. Freedom

or right, is not an exclusive matter between the State and a citizen. One man's freedom, may

destroy another man's freedom. A community of rights, not always synchronizing with each

other, has to beharmonised, if any freedom is to be real.

RIGHT TO MAKE NOISE FOR RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES

The Supreme Court in the case ofChurch of God (FullGospel) inIndia v. :K.K.R. Majestic

Colony Welfare Association8

( Appeal) had to decide whether a particular community or sect of

that community can claim right to add to noise pollution on theground of religion.

The court said that the religious teachers or the spiritual leaders who had laid down these tenets,

had not in any way desired the use of microphones as a means of performance of religion. While

deciding whether there was any right to religion breached by such a limitation the court said that

the provision of Article 25 is subject to the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. On

true and proper construction of the provision of Article 25(1), read with Article 19(1)(a) of the

8 AIR 2000 SC 2773


9/17

9

Constitution, it cannot be said that a citizen should be coerced to hear anything whichhe does

not like or whichhe does not require.

In any case, if there is such practice, it should not adversely affect the rights of others including-

that of being not disturbed in their activities. The court referred to the Constitutional Bench

judgement ofAcharya MaharajshriNarendra PrasadjiAnandPrasadjiMaharajandOrs. v.

TheState of GujaratandOrs9. Where in the court had observed that

"no rightsinan organizedsocietycan be absolute. Enjoyment of one'srights must be consistent

with the enjoyment ofrightsalso by others. Where ina free play ofsocial forcesitisnot possible

to bringaboutavoluntary harmony , the State has to step in to setright the imbalance between

competinginterests".

The Court also observed that a particular fundamental right cannot exist in isolation in a water-

tight compartment. One fundamental right of a person may have to co-exist in harmony with the

exercise of another fundamental right by others also with reasonable and valid exercise of power

by the State in the light of the directive principles in the interests of social welfare as a whole.

While drawing a harmony between both the provisions the court reasoned that no religion

prescribesthatprayersshould beperformed bydisturbing thepeaceofothers nordoes it

preach that theyshould be throughvoiceamplifiersor beating of drums. In our view, in a

civilized society in the name of religion, activities which disturb old or infirm persons, students

or children having their sleep in theearly hours or during daytime or other persons carrying on

other activities cannot be permitted. It should not be forgotten that young babies in the

neighborhood are also entitled to enjoy their natural right of sleeping in a peaceful atmosphere. A

student preparing forhis examination is entitled to concentrate on his studies without their being

any unnecessary disturbance by the neighbors. Similarly, the old and the infirm areentitled to

enjoy reasonable quietness during their leisurehours without there being any nuisance of noise

pollution. Aged, sick, people afflicted with psychic disturbances as well as children up to 6 years

9 1975 (1) SCC 2.


10/17

10

of age are considered to be very sensible (sic sensitive) to noise. Their rights are also required to

behonored.

In the case ofChurch of God (FullGospel)InIndiarep. by itsState Council Chairman, P.

WelleslySolomonv. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association(Madras) the court said that

people should practice their respective faith in a cultured way and not to resort to aggressive or

unfair methods and resorting to a method of worship which is inhuman. God, to whichever

religion he belongs to, is said to be present everywhere and does not require a blaring and

deafening amplifier to hear the prayer of his devotees. The nature ofevil and adverseeffects

which noise pollution causes to the children, aged, sickly, pregnant women and even normal

individuals and how it disturbs the student community etc., have been repeatedly emphasized

with scientific facts and figures, any number of times in newspapers, magazines, health journalsand other media.

Moreover, where there is a clash of two Fundamental Rights, as in the instant case, namely, the

right to profess as part of right to religion and right to lead a healthy life which is her

Fundamental Right under Article 21, the right which would advance the public morality or

public interest, would alone beenforced through the process of court, for the reason that moral

considerations cannot be kept at bay.10

In Forum, Prevention of Environment & SoundPollution v. Union ofIndiaandAnrs11

the

court discussed The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 which imposed

restrictions on the use of loud speakers/ public address system. Exception of this rule is that the

stategovernment can permit use of loudspeakers on public address system during any festive or

religious occasion for certain time (10:00 P.M. to 12:00 midnight) with certain limitations.

This sub rule (3) had been inserted through Amendment Rules 2002 w.e.f. 11th

Oct, 2002 and

therefore, its constitutional validity had been challenged in the High Court of Kerela. The High

court had dismissed the petition holding that sub rule was intravires. The aggrieved petitioners

has filed special leave petition in Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stated that use of loud

10Mr. Mahesh BhattandKasturiandSonsv. Union of India (UOI) andAnr. 2008 BusLR 366 (Del)11 AIR2006SC348


11/17

11

speakers cannot be must for performing religious acts and no religion ever says to force the

unwilling to listen theexpressions of religious beliefs. The court opined that the passage quoted

in the newspaper stated the factual position as to the objective of several religions and their

underlying logic.

However, keeping in view the diversity of cultures and religions in India, the Court justified the

limited power of exemption from operation of the Noise Rules granted by the Central

Government as its statutory power. The power to grant exemption is conferred on State

Government but the State Government exercise the power with due care and caution and in

public interest.

As per court opinion the stategovernment should specify in advance, the number and particulars

of the days on which suchexemption will be operative, and it should not apply to silence zone

areas. The Court therefore, clarified the position of law. The court asserted that, it only upheld

the constitutional validity of the Noise Pollution Rules framed by the Central Government in

exercise of its statutory powers. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the

High Court was affirmed with certain clarifications.

In Vinayaga ChathurthiMadhya Kuzhiv.State of TamilNadu12

, a right to take Vinayaga idol

in procession along a particular route was claimed. The Benchheld that it was not an absoluteright but subject to regulation and imposition of restrictions. The Bench pointed out that the

rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(b), 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India could not be

claimed as absolute rights and observed that any right claimed as absolute right would not be

exercisable as there would be no orderliness in exercising such a right and as a result thereof it

would affect the rights of the other persons who also enjoyed similar rights that Articles 25 and

26 opened with the words subject to public order, morality and health that temporary orders for

prohibition of meeting or procession to prevent imminent breach of peace were reasonable

restrictions.

12 1997 MLJ (Crl) 142.


12/17

12

In ShaikhismailSahib v. NirchindaVenkatanrasimhuluIyah13

, the plaintiff brought an action

for injunction against the defendant forhaving let his house to people to perform Pujas on which

occasions loud music and noise in connection with the ceremonies caused such disturbance as to

amount to an actionable nuisance and it was actually found that the noise was such that it

prevented the people in the neighborhood from having proper slee p during nights. It was held

that since there could be no doubt that the noise in the case was not produced by ordinary music

but by loud and discordant instruments like the tom-tom, cymbals, and so on, and when such

noise was made long after thehour when people would ordinarily retire for the night, it should

necessarily amount to an actionable nuisance.

In the case of Chairman, Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, Guruvayur v.

Superintendent of Police, Thrissur14,the Kerala High Court allowed the Guruvayur temple to

use loudspeakers. This was allowed as the court felt that it was integral to the ceremony as

thousands of devotees thronged the temple for the ceremony. Thus it should be noted in this

regard that permission was given only when the court felt that without the same the faith of the

devotees will behampered. But the court even added a reminder that the temple should make

sure that the noise is to its lowest possible level.

In the case ofMaulana MuftiSyedBarkativ.State of WestBengal15

, it was held that calling of

Azan through loudspeakers is not an integral part of the religion of Islam. Use of Islam was atechnological development and not a part of Islam.

In the landmark judgment of In Re: Noise Pollution - Implementation of the Laws for

restricting use of loudspeakers and high volume producing sound systems16

the matters before the Court raised certain issues of far- reaching implications in day-to-day life

of the people in India relatable to noise pollution vis--vis right to lifeenshrined in Article 21 of

the Constitution of India as interpreted in its wide swee p by the constitutional courts of the

country. Though a limited grievance was raised to begin with but several interveners and

13 AIR 1936 Mad 905.14 AIR 1998 Ker 122.15 AIR 1999 Cal 15.16 AIR 2005 SC 3136.


13/17

13

interlocutory applications enhanced the scope ofhearing and the cases wereheard in a very wide

perspective centering around Article 21 of the Constitution. Several associated and incidental

issues have also been gone into.

The Court in this case discussed in detail several questions, such as what is noise? What are its

adverse effects? Whether noise pollution runs in conflict with the fundamental rights of the

people? And what relief can be allowed by way of directions issued in public interest?

Afterexamination of these questions the Court came to the following conclusion with regards to

usage of loudspeakers: The noise level at the boundary of the public place, where loudspeaker or

public address system or any other noise source is being used shall not exceed 10 decibel above

the ambient noise standards for the area or 75 decibel whichever is lower. No one shall beat a

drum or tom-tom or blow a trumpet or beat or sound any instrument or use any sound amplifier

at night (between 10. 00 p.m. and 6.a.m.) exce pt in public emergencies. The peripheral noise

level of privately owned sound system shall not exceed by more than 5 decibel than the ambient

air quality standard specified for the area in which it is used, at the boundary of the private place.

The States shall make provision for seizure and confiscation of loudspeakers, amplifiers and such

otherequipments as are found to be creating noise beyond the permissible limits. Rule 3 of the

Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 makes provision for specifying ambient

air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones, categorization of the areas for

the purpose of implementation of noise standards, authorizing the authorities for enforcement

and achievement of laid down standards. The Central Government/State Governments shall take

steps for laying down such standards and notifying the authorities where it has not already been

done.


14/17

14

CONCLUSION

The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it,

namely, the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities

for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and

commingling with fellow human beings. Every act which offends against or impairs human

dignity would constitute deprivation pro tanto of this right to live.

In the upshot of aforesaid discourse, it may be submitted that the Supreme Court of India, being

the final interpreter of the provisions of the Constitution of India, has done its job in a

tremendous way. Law is an instrument of social control. In case of any conflict between

competing interests, one may recourse to Social Engineering implying the striking the balance by

measuring the importance of various interests.

Though there is no yardstick to determine the importance of interests but the agencies concerned

with law can bring theharmony by applying the'Harmonious Rule of Construction'. Harmonious

rule provides that in case of conflict between the two provisions of the same statute or where two

provisions cannot stand together, the courts should try to giveeffect to both the provisions in

harmonizing way. The basic presumption behind the rule orharmonious construction is that the

legislature must neverhave intended to contradict itself. This conflict can be resolved by making

one provision a general rule and the other as an exce ption. In consonance with the same

approach, the Supreme Court has so far attempted to giveeffect to both the provisions.

When the quandary has not been resolved, it was expounded though Freedom of Religions is one

of the fundamental rights and the word 'secular' signifies non interference in the affairs of the

individual and God, but it is not absolute as the language of Article 25 (1) clearly states 'Subject

to public order , morality and health ' and Article 25(2) empowers the state to make laws

regulating or restricting any economic, financial and particle or other secular activity which may

be associated with religious practice. The statehas the power to make laws for providing for

social welfare and social reforms even if these laws amount to interference with religious.17

17Om Birangana Religious Societyv. The State'andOrs. MANU/WB/0254/1996


15/17

15

Therefore no person can claim a right to make noise in furtherance to his right of religion if it is

causing inconvenience to the public as this will lead to chaos and thus hehas to be subject to the

limitations and conditions imposed by the state.

The Supreme Court has also become strict with respect to implementation of the same. In the

case ofYashwantTrimbakv. State of Maharashtra18

said that enactment of a law, but tolerating

its infringement is worse than not enacting law at all. The continued infringement of law, over a

period of time, is made possible by adoption of such means which are best known to the violators

of law. Thus the court wanted the state to take requisite action. Implementation of law holds key

to theeffectiveness of law.

There are instances were in the court have relaxed the law but only when therehas been absolute

necessity and no other alternativehas been available. But with such concessions the courts have

even imposed reasonable conditions whichhave to be compulsorily complied with.

It cannot be said that the religious teachers or the spiritual leaders who had laid down these

tenets, had any way desired the use of microphones as a means of performance of religion.

Undoubtedly, one can practice, profess and propagate religion, as guaranteed under Article 25(1)

of the Constitution but that is not an absolute right. The provision of Article 25 is subject to the

provisions of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. On true and proper construction of the

provision of Article 25(1), read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it cannot be said that a

citizen should be coerced to hear any thing whichhe docs not like or whichhe docs not require.

Therefore right to make noise is not absolute and has to follow theguidelines and rules laid

down by the courts and the appropriate authorities.

18MANU/MH/0453/1995


16/17

16

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

1. Shyam Divan & Armin Rosencranz, Environment lawand Policy in India (New Delhi,Oxford India Paperbacks, 2002)

2. Stuart Bell & Donald Mc Gillivray, Environmental Law (Delhi, Universal LawPublishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 5

thEdn., 2000)

Web links:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_pollution2. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/noip.htm

Cases

1. Virendra Gaurv. State of Haryana[ 1994 ] Supp 6 SCR 782. Rajni Kant Vermav. State MANU/UP/0084/19583. State of Bombayv Narasu Appa Mali, AIR 1952 Bom 824. Rajni Kant Verma v. State, AIR 1958 All. 3605. P.A.Jacob v. the Superintendent of Police, AIR 2000 SC 27736. Church of God (Full Gospel) in Indiav. :K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association (

Appeal), AIR 2000 SC 2773

7. Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji AnandPrasadji MaharajandOrs.v. The Stateof GujaratandOrs ,1975 (1) SCC 2.

8. Church of God (Full Gospel) In Indiarep. by its State Council Chairman, P. WelleslySolomonv. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association(Madras)

9. Forum, Prevention of Environment & SoundPollution v. Union of IndiaandAnrs10.Mr. Mahesh BhattandKasturiandSonsv. Union of India (UOI) andAnr. 2008 BusLR

366 (Del)

11.Vinayaga Chathurthi Madhya Kuzhi v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1997 MLJ (Crl) 142.12.Shaikhismail Sahib v. Nirchinda Venkatanrasimhulu Iyah, AIR 1936 Mad 905


17/17

17

13.Chairman , Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, Guruvayur v. Superintendentof Police, ThrissurMaulana Mufti SyedBarkativ. State of West Bengal, AIR 1999 Cal

15.

14.In Re: Noise Pollution - Implementation of the Laws forrestricting use of loudspeakersandhigh volume producingsoundsystems, AIR 2005 SC 3136.

15.Yashwant Trimbakv. State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/0453/199516.Om Birangana Religious Societyv. The State'andOrs. MANU/WB/0254/1996

Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	skamirkhan
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Environmental Law Final Paper

Documents