Noise Pollution is proving to be a big menace for the community.
Be it the noise from horns and the outdated noisy vehicles or canopy-less generators and the Loudspeakers/DJ (in High decibel level) & firecrackers used in the name of religious/marriage ceremonies, Noise pollution is causing many kinds of diseases like sleeplessness, anxiety, depression, deafness, blood pressure, heart attack, peptic ulcer and even cancer.
A weaker immunity system of an individual means lesser GDP of the nation and more and more expenditure on medicines and hospitals. So, with this philosophy and clear vision in mind, SATYA FOUNDATION has launched its drive against the Noise pollution, especially after 10 p.m.
As per the Supreme Court guidelines, nobody can use any kind of loudspeaker, band, firecrackers, D.J. etc. (except in the closed sound proof room/auditorium) between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Even before 10 p.m., the decibel level should be such that any two people talking to each other in nearby area should have no problem in listening to each other. Police/local administration (of course it needs guts and strong will power of the state in giving the citizens their due right of 8 hours of sound sleep) can seize any such Microphone/Loudspeaker/ Amplifier/D.J. or any other noise producing equipment after 10 p.m. The offenders can be booked under I.P.C. 268, 290 and 291 (imprisonment up to 6 months or penalty or both) and also under Environment Protection Act (Penalty up to Rupees One Lakh or imprisonment up to 5 years or both). With the consistent efforts by SATYA FOUNDATION at various levels, the U.P. police is becoming very sensitive on the issue and has begun the legal action in Varanasi. Anybody facing the late night noise pollution can get his/her area totally silenced by just dialing toll free 100 or the nearest police station. Police team reaches the spot within minutes and stops all the nuisance in the name of 'religion' and 'tradition'. This situation has come after constant awareness campaign and efforts at multiple levels by SATYA FOUNDATION. Not only pamphlets, posters and the coverage by print and electronic media, our interactions with masses in schools, and the Nukkad meetings in villages and Mohallas have helped the mission in its growth.
We truly believe that man is simply medium of doing cosmic work, assigned by the invisible and the infinite. And since 10th February, 2008, we are just doing our assigned work, without caring/worrying for the results.
Noise is unwanted sound. It causes hearing loss, stress, high blood pressure, sleep loss, lost productivity, and a general reduction in the quality of life and opportunity for personal and collective tranquility. Noise is caused by people and businesses claiming rights, usually property rights, to emit noise into the air, and by people who do not possess the civility to be good neighbors. While its effects are an environmental health issue, its causes are tied to the issues of sovereignty (who owns the air?) and civility (how should we treat our neighbors?). Together, environmental health, sovereignty, and civility are the three pillars that support noise activism. Through the work of the League for the Hard of Hearing, Arline Bronzaft, Gary Evans, Alice Suter, and many others, the public is starting to grasp the health issues related to noise. Noise activists, likewise, are starting to grasp the full implications of their work and the importance of sovereignty and civility. We are coming to the realization that combating noise requires addressing the underlying causes of the problem, of which sovereignty and civility are at the center. Sovereignty Much of the noise pollution we experience results from individuals and businesses who believe that it is their right or freedom to make noise. The most common right claimed is a property right. They claim that they should be free to use their property as they see fit without interference from others. The second most common right cited is that of prior occupation. People often assume that if the noise source "was there" before the complainant, that the noise is permissible. Finally some people claim that they should be free to act as they wish without interference from others or the state, or they claim specific rights such as the freedom of speech. Each of these claims shows a fundamental misunderstanding of noise, ownership, and the western tradition of freedom. Persons making the first claim, that it is their property right, are wrongly assuming that they own the air over and around their neighbors. If the noise was limited to their property their case would be slightly stronger. Even then, however, it is not an absolute right. Smoking, for example, is prohibited in many public places by the states, even though the pollution is limited to air within private property. In the case of noise heard on public property or another’s private property, the noise maker has no claim to owning the air on which the noise travels. Therefore, they have no private property right to broadcast the noise. Another version of the property rights argument claims that because the air is common property owned by everyone, everyone has the right to do as he or she pleases. This too is clearly a flawed argument. Roadways are also common property, but no one has the right to drive left of the yellow line or park their car in the middle of the street. Common property does not entail universal entitlement. In fact, such a policy leads to what is known as the "tragedy of the commons." The term "tragedy of the commons" comes from the experience on common grazing fields in England. If everyone acts in his or her own self interest on common property (in the common grazing fields, that meant grazing your cattle as much as possible), the common resource is degraded (the field is overgrazed and therefore supplies only a fraction of the feed it otherwise could have). The antidote to the tragedy of the commons is an ethic of the commons: common property needs to be managed so that uses that do not degrade or detract from others’ use and enjoyment are encouraged, and uses that detract from others’ use and enjoyment are discouraged. With respect to noise, that means encouraging quieter uses and discouraging noisy ones.
bad neighbors don’t. Work against property rights and "wise use" movement candidates and initiatives. My right to make noise ought to end at your ear. The battle against noise is strengthened when other environmentalists succeed. The claim of freedom from government interference seems to overlook the very nature and development of the concept of freedom in western cultures. species. air. They are the bullies in the schoolyard. efforts to reopen the EPA’s noise office. habitat. smog. 5. 3. This is a concept well understood in America today. and weakened when they fail. and waterways.The claim of prior occupation clearly does not provide justification for noise pollution. This has several implications for persons seeking to effectively control noise. and degraded when the commons is used to maximize profits or opportunities for a few. People working to reduce noise are environmentalists seeking an ethic of the commons. stronger regulation of transportation related noise. grocery store with early morning garbage pickup. 4. no airports. Noisy neighbors do not care about their impact on others. philosopher John Stuart Mill. etc. Combating noise is part of a larger struggle to politically and legally establish sovereignty and control over common or public property.). Even at the height of laissez-faire attitudes in the 18th century. One way to see the weakness in this argument is to realize that the argument is not used in reverse. The most common source of the noise is a business: a racetrack. The Noise Pollution Clearinghouse receives more than 100 inquiries a week from people impacted by noise. The effort to control noise is part of a greater effort to protect that which is held in common by the public from abuse and degradation. acid rain. 2. supporting efforts to reduce noise. no jets. etc. water. People lived near almost all major noise sources before those sources existed. Moreover. My right or freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose. airways. and biodiversity. Other efforts to protect the commons are concerned with protecting our public lands and parks. or to maximize only a few opportunities. a gun range. Our success is tied directly to other environmental causes. there were people living there before the source was expanded. it is inherently a political struggle. Good neighbors keep their noise to themselves. At some point there were no motorized boats on lakes. a building with very noisy refrigeration or air conditioning equipment. Communities do not give neighbors the right to prohibit the introduction of new noises in their neighborhood because the prior use was quiet. Support initiatives that treat noise as a pollutant (for example. one of the greatest defenders of the freedoms of individuals. yet there have always been people seeking quiet.
. Support environmentally concerned candidates and initiatives. Join forces with environmentalists and build coalitions with environmentalists to educate them about noise. a bar. In addition to the obvious one. recognized that people ought to be free to do as they please so long as they do not harm others.
Civility Noise. What these efforts share is the recognition that our well-being is enhanced when the commons is used to maximize opportunities for everyone. As the term sovereignty suggests. friends of quiet should:
1. more than most pollutants. Support environmental causes unrelated to noise such as efforts to control global warming. is closely related to manners.
The defining characteristic between the teen or college student who are dealt with swiftly and the business that is allowed to pollute is that the business is making money. Hispanics. Local governments are unwilling or unable to challenge them. It is absurd that just because someone is making money they can also make noise. acid rain. Low-income neighborhoods are much more likely than wealthier ones to suffer from excessive airport and aircraft noise. free of noise. Minorities and the poor have the highest exposure to many environmental pollutants.S. It should not be surprising. that minorities and the poor are most often the noise polluted. Sharing some of the claim to "worst noise polluter" is the average normal person. especially in the cases of the most egregious acts of incivility reported to the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse. and that others be treated respectfully and in a manner we would wish for ourselves. noise activism does not succeed in a vacuum. Census reports that families who rent their homes are twice as likely to list noise as a major neighborhood problem as those who own their homes. Understanding just who the noise polluters are and that they include us is both enlightening and disturbing. The Noise Pollution Clearinghouse has developed a Good Neighbor Policy to use as a guideline for respect within a community. smog. and persons living below the poverty level are significantly more likely to list noise as a major neighborhood problem. Businesses are not the only bullies in our communities. etc. This is an unfortunate but all too common necessity in modern society. Noise. it can be modified for different communities depending on their needs. Normal people tend to noise pollute when they have some sense of anonymity and when they lack connection to their community—when they are literally zipping by. The reason businesses are the worst offenders is that political power is on their side. When some people choose not to be a good neighbor. to the very same effect: families can’t sleep. it has become obvious to me that the typical noise making bully in America today is a business. however. Environmental and community consciousness is the medium of noise activism. or to be awakened 3 times a night. Laws forcing people to be good neighbors are much less desirable than people acting as good neighbors out of choice. and Civility Just as noise cannot be heard in a vacuum. the party would be shut down. laws must be passed to force neighborliness upon them. While they exist. Obviously. Similarly. nothing is done. Most people would have thought the "neighbor from hell" would be an intimidating bully who lives next door. while they do crack down on individuals. The two most common sources of noise pollution are highways and airports—places that most Americans use quite frequently¹.. that our air remains clean. It is not uncommon for people who call the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse to be kept awake for a couple hours at night. Sovereignty. Friends of quiet need to be part Rachel Carson and part Miss Manners.
. If the noise polluter were a teenager with a boom box playing half as loud as the noise of the business. businesses eclipse individuals for the title of "neighbor from hell" by an order of magnitude. The same people who would never honk their horn at midnight in a residential community will fly over the same homes at midnight. African Americans. and this is clearly the case with noise.As director of the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse. But if the noise polluter is a business. We need to demand that common property be protected. It is difficult to understand any justification for these differences. the boom box would probably be confiscated. If the noise polluter were a college student hosting a late night party. The U. 5 nights a week.
Keep music to conversational levels. With respect to: Lawn and garden equipment
• • • • • • Use a reel mower and rake whenever possible. even number days only).
Loudspeakers. and quality of life of people. musical instruments. Whenever possible. And since government regulations of all these industries and products is very lax. sound amplifiers.
Shared walls. Not to have their sleep disturbed by noise. The airline. Do not use a leaf blower for health and noise reasons. and the Federal Highway Administration deserve much more of the blame for making almost no attempt to reduce the impact of noise. Not to hear someone else’s noise in their home. motorcycle. everyone should reasonably expect: 1. Lay rugs in heavily traveled areas and hallways. lagging way behind European standards. Walk lightly. and limit bass volume. 3.
Good Neighbor Policy
The Purpose of the Good Neighbor Policy is to protect the comfort. site speakers away from common walls. peace. 2. Establish a schedule for motorized outdoor lawn and garden work with your neighbors (e. To be protected from adverse impacts on their quality of life due to noise. The Good Neighbor Policy is based on the principal "Good neighbors keep their noise to themselves. the Federal Aviation Administration. Ensure that nighttime noise is not audible within neighbor’s homes." We ask neighbors to agree to the following. repose. floors. and ceilings
• • • •
. and truck industries. public address systems. quiet. especially on hardwood floors. these industries have historically made no effort to quiet their products unless forced to by regulations. At a minimum. almost no progress is being made. Commercial and industrial establishments should use pagers or radios instead of PA systems.¹Average people definitely share some responsibility for using the highways and airports. Ensure that maximum daytime noise levels on neighbor’s property does not exceed typical conversation levels.g. Avoid the use of power lawn equipment if your neighbors are in their yards. health. With the exception of the car industry (specifically many high end and Japanese cars). car. and outdoor events
• • • • Limit outdoor nighttime noise (between 9 PM and 9 AM) to levels quieter than typical conversation. avoid the outdoor use of power tools on Sunday. Use power lawn and garden equipment between 9 AM and 6 PM. Respect your neighbor’s sleep schedule.
Turn off trucks and auxiliary equipment if vehicle is stationary for more than 2 minutes. or other noisier modifications of exhaust systems. refrigeration. Do not use straight pipes. move to a private place where you will not disturb others.000 feet of residential property
• • •
Automobiles. Monday to Saturday. to 9 AM to 5 PM. Purchase products that require the least shipping. parks. refrigeration. restaurants. use of power tools. trains. and heating equipment. MondaySaturday.
Barking dogs and other animal noises
Cell phones and pagers
Air conditioning. Purchase products that are among the quietest in their class. Maintain stereo volume levels so that noise is not audible 25 feet from vehicle. When using a cell phone. heating systems and other permanent outdoor appliances
New appliances and equipment
• • •
Commercial and industrial operation within 1. Locate air conditioning. trucks. Buy quiet. cutouts. Use a horn only for emergencies. unloading. Perform noisy construction work only between 9 AM and 5 PM. and concert halls. or use them in "silent mode" in public places such as. refrigeration. Noisy construction work usually includes activities such as hammering or the use power tools outdoors. and heating systems as far as possible from neighbors and screen central heating and air conditioning systems with a solid fence. and motorcycles
• • • • •
. beaches. Train dogs not to bark. Purchase only the quietest air conditioning. Ensure that dogs and other animals are not left unattended and in situations where they may bark or otherwise disturb neighbors. theaters. Ensure that any noise spilling over onto neighbor’s property is less than typical conversational levels. Do not use air compression brakes (Jake Brakes). Limit noisy operations such as outdoor loading. Turn cell phones and pagers off.Trash removal
• • • Schedule trash pickup between 9 AM and 5 PM. Maintain exhaust and muffler systems in good working condition. Buy local.
Pilots should maintain a minimum of 2. Do not leave valuables in passenger compartments of cars. Maintain a 1. maintain a 2. Notify all potentially affected neighbors if an activity may interfere with their use and enjoyment of their property and arrange to control and eliminate any possible interference. Do not jump waves or go in circles. Ship next day packages only in cases of emergencies. Do not take tour flights. more efficient forms of transportation. Do not use ORV’s in remote or pristine areas.
Alarms and car alarms
• • •
Off road vehicle use
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Thrill craft (Jet Skis)
Overnight deliveries requiring nighttime air flights Firearms Notification
. When operating thrill craft. parks. Whenever possible. Use standard equipment or better mufflers. parks. Do not discharge firearms within 2.000 feet from shoreline and islands. Maintain at least 1.500 feet of residential property. Book all flights to take off and land between the hours of 8 AM and 8 PM. Do not purchase cars that use the horn to let the driver know when the doors are locked.•
Buy smaller vehicles with smaller tires and drive at slower speeds (noise is proportional to tire size and vehicle speed--avoid SUV’s and speeding) Rely on silent alarms and devices that disable vehicles to protect cars. and beaches. When operating off-road vehicles. maintain at least 1. or public or private beaches. use quieter.000 foot "no wake" zone. Do not remove mufflers or use cutout devices.000 feet distance from residential property. maintain a distance of at least 2.000 feet from shoreline "no wake" zone. Pilots should avoid flying over urban or residential areas and parks.500 feet from residential areas. When leaving or returning to shore. Limit boat stereo levels.000 feet from non-motorized watercraft.
Informal action An informal pleasant approach by yourself to the person responsible for a noise could resolve the matter without involving the need for a formal complaint. The local authority can take action where a statutory noise nuisance exists but there are many factors to be taken into consideration in determining whether a noise is a statutory nuisance or not.• • •
Emergency construction or operations necessary to protect safety of persons or property. Modifications of the Good Neighbor Policy based on mutual agreement of all affected neighbors. Special community-sponsored events.
What is a noise nuisance? A noise nuisance is when an emission of noise affects you in a significant and unreasonable way. You can do this either by telephone or by completing the General Nuisance Complaint Sheet found in the link above. DIY and dog barking. Making a complaint If a direct approach doesn't resolve the matter or you feel unable to make such an approach then you can make an official complaint through the Council's Environmental Protection Team. Many people are unaware of the effect that their loud music or other noisy activities may have on other people.g. In most cases this is the most effective way of dealing with such a problem and the least damaging to relationships. If they were they would be more likely to act in a responsible and considerate manner. • An informal letter may be sent to the person producing the noise
. In most cases the following procedure would be followed. for the Council to take legal action on anyone's behalf it has to satisfied that a 'Statutory Nuisance' exists and that evidence(suitable for use in court) has been obtained to support the case. particularly if the facts were brought to their attention in a polite manner. However. It would be more than just an annoyance and much more than a mere detection of noise. Such as: • • • • • Time of day Duration and frequency of the noise Volume of the noise Character of the noise Your location e. urban/rural
Contact Environmen tal Health
• • •
Feedback Print This Page Share This Page
Diary Recording Form [DOC 90kb]
A noise nuisance can be caused by many activities such as music. Noise from roads and air traffic cannot be dealt with by the Council.
In such cases section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 allows you to take your own action against a person causing an alleged nuisance. and those of any witnesses. for example. intermittent or unpredictable. Taking your own legal action It is not always possible for a Council Officer to obtain the necessary information or evidence required to take formal action. If the Magistrate is convinced that your case is justified. You would be advised to seek professional advice from your own solicitor before embarking on this course of action. but a brief guideline on what you will need to do follows below. The Clerk will advise you that you must give the person responsible three days written notice that you intend complaining direct to the Magistrates Court. • You would be asked to keep a diary record of occasions when the noise occurs and how it affected you.
. or indeed the Council may come to the view that the noise about which you are complaining does not amount to Statutory Nuisance. Once you have gathered sufficient evidence you should go to the Clerk's office at the Magistrates Court and explain that you wish to make a complaint under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. A date will then be set for the case to be heard and a summons will be served on the 'offender'. are kept up to date and that your witnesses are prepared to support you in court. You will need your evidence to show that you have a case to argue. an 'Abatement notice' may be served to prohibit or restrict the noise. This could be where the noise is. you would be required to keep further diary records and an attempt to witness the noise would be made by an officer.
• • •
Finally if the noise continues and evidence substantiates this. you will need to keep further records and if necessary return to court with your evidence. and prohibiting its recurrence. The Court may also impose a fine on the 'offender'. You should ensure that your records. (A diary record sheet is available in the link above. they will make a court order requiring the nuisance to be abated.informing them of the complaint. If following the service of a notice the noise continues.) Noise monitoring equipment may be installed in your property to obtain evidence of the noise nuisance. In court you will be required to present your case and the offender will be able to cross-examine you. If a statutory nuisance is found to exist. Keep diary records detailing when the noise occurs and how it effects you. An independent witness would also be useful. If the order is ignored. the Council may take the offender to court for not complying with the 'Abatement Notice'. An officer may visit at a time when the noise occurs to make an assessment.
A further advantage is that any complaints of 'criminal harassment' have to be handled by the police. The police have the power to arrest those who commit criminal harassment.' Noise can be a powerful means to harass one's neighbour. The offence can take place either in public or in a private place. So before you consider taking action check that your local authority has actually implemented the Act. However. The Act is more or less in response to the escalation of the problem caused by 'neighbours from hell. your local authority has to adopt the Noise Act.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
On the heels of the Noise Act is another statutory measure designed by the government to make the neighbourhood as safer place. This does not necessarily
The only interpretation in the PFHA 1997 of any significance is the definition of 'course of conduct.
Section 1(1) makes it an offence for a person to pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another and which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of another.' This must involve conduct on at least two occasions.The Noise Act 1996 contains no nonsense measures to control noise.
On conviction. upon summary conviction. Of course. the prosecutor may apply to the court to invoke a restraining order against the offender prohibiting any conduct specified in the order. the PFHA 1997 allows the victim of an actual or apprehended breach of section 1 to pursue a civil claim for damages for '(among other things) any anxiety caused by the
. The Act makes provision for this.mean that both types of conduct must be noise related. There does not have to be a definitive time span between both occasions. There does not appear to be a limitation on the time between first occasion and second occasion. and.
The determination of the government in trying to get to grips with bad neighbours and the like might be shown in the penalties that are available to the courts. for instance.
Moreover. arrest offenders. the second might be depositing excrement on one's property. this might mean that after an offender has been released from prison he can just continue where he or she has left off. if there is evidence of the second course of conduct. receive up to 6 months imprisonment. makes the offender liable to a term of imprisonment of up to 5 years on indictment. The police might be able to return in say a week's time. A person can. upon further conviction. The first might be the playing of excessively loud music. Any breach of the order is an arrestable offence where.
The ‘otherwise’ can govern public conduct associated with a catalogue of anti-social activity from football hooliganism to the mass picketing of industrial sites. The Public Order Act 1986 now governs the conduct of persons in public places. much of this anti-social behaviour creates noise. abusive or insulting words or behaviour. For our purposes. reaction. noisy drunks and the like. particularly the freedom to express political sympathies or otherwise. However.
We often associate public disorder with images of large-scale demonstrations or even riots.harassment or any financial loss'. It is difficult to find a situation where there is a gathering of people and the emphasis is on quietness. Funerals or remembrance parades are perhaps the last preserve of tranquil gatherings. public order law can also be effective in trying to abate noisy occurrences. such as a gang of rowdy youths. whether they are drunk or not. This is an important legal development as the Act expressly recognises the fact that continual harassment whether by noise or otherwise can induce a nervous. Section 5(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 creates the offence if: -
“A person uses threatening.
. often severe. It is a strategic piece of legislation in terms of constitutional freedom.
Although the Act might appear public in context it does extend to private places. the Act creates an important exception where dwellings are concerned. alarm or distress thereby.
One of the advantages of this Act is that appears to deal with those who are subjected to the noise created by disorderly persons. However. within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment. In effect.or disorderly behaviour. The psychological impact of the noise might be sufficient to distress a person. might cause alarm. resides in that dwelling or another dwelling. before the police can use their power of arrest they must have warned the offender to stop acting in a disorderly manner. OR displays any writing. sign or other visible representation which is threatening. However.
. abusive or insulting. It does not cover offending behaviour that is carried out by a person inside a dwelling where you.
The police have the responsibility for dealing with people who are disorderly. A sudden outburst of noise. you cannot complain against your neighbour. like a firework. They can arrest those who breach this measure.
where the loudspeaker is used to advertise any entertainment. However. next morning. Loudspeakers are banned from 9 p. This exemption does not mean that the loudspeaker can be used irresponsibly.m. The most notable example is the mobile ice cream seller. in the evening to 8 a. the Act makes an exemption for those persons using a loudspeaker to sell perishable food between midday and 7pm. which allow a loudspeaker to be used for emergency purposes.
Although the act authorises the use of a loudspeaker during the day. This exemption becomes unlawful if the loudspeaker gives reasonable cause for annoyance in the neighbourhood.
It is now become popular to mark a celebration with the setting off of fireworks. Section 62 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 lays down certain restrictions for the use of loudspeakers in the public domain. So if your neighbour wants to use loudspeakers contained in a large portable music player in the street in the late evening he is prohibited. However.m. The use of a loudspeaker by the police or fire service.Amplified sound can often be the source of irritation.
. the Act does make some common sense exceptions. trade or business it becomes unlawful.
infirm and indeed animals.Notwithstanding the noise impact sudden loud noises can have on the elderly. The licence might contain conditions relating to the creation of noise.
. The local authority has the authority under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to issue street trading licences.
Perhaps it is an indication of the strength of the economy when we see a proliferation of street traders. such as an outdoor market. Section 80 of the Explosives Act 1875 makes it a summary offence to throw or fire fireworks on a street or public place. If the market is permanent. They might have a department that deals with street trading. We have all seen the market trader with the microphone slung round his neck barking out his wares. Some are very competitive and to compete some create noise as means to attract custom. If you annoyed by noisy street trader contact your local authority. it might be wise to address your complaint to him. The licence allows a person to trade in a street or public place. there is often a Market Inspector present. the law is arguably very weak where the control of these potentially harmful devices is concerned. If so.
the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 gives the local authority the power to shut a food takeaway shop where there is evidence from the public of disturbance. Unfortunately. Section 4(1) of the Act provides:
“a district council may make an order (in this part of the Act referred to as a ‘closing order’) with respect to any premises in the district where meals or refreshment are supplied for consumption off the premises. Although this might be convenient.The late night takeaway food business has now extended beyond the ubiquitous street corner fish and chip shop to a large number of outlets catering for virtually every conceivable taste. one of the problems of such outlets is that people might congregate outside and make noise. Nonetheless. if they are satisfied that it is desirable to make such an order to prevent residents in the neighbourhood of the premises being unreasonably disturbed either by persons resorting to the premises or by use of the premises for the supply of meals and refreshment. younger people are attracted to the bright lights and modern design of takeaway food premises.”
Construction and Maintenance Noise
It is probably a rare sight these days not to find some stretch of road in the neighbourhood
All manner of public utilities are constantly engaged in opening up the road or pavement and doing what is necessary to maintain vital supplies of water.being dug up. inspection. structures and roads. etc. there is the noise that is created by the building of new properties or the repair or renovation of some existing buildings.
(c) demolition or dredging work. To a lesser extent. opening or boring under any road or adjacent land in connection with the construction. maintenance or removal of works. repaired or maintained.
. electricity. the local authority has control over the following types of work:
(a) the erection. it does not necessarily mean that the undertaker can act without consideration. (b) or (c ) above) any work of engineering construction.
By virtue of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Although the noise might be transient or there is a definitive time scale for the work to end. alteration. and
(d) (whether or not also comprised in paragraph (a). repair or maintenance of buildings. construction.
(b) breaking up.
The local authority has the discretion to lay down conditions for the work.
If you feel that the noise coming from the work is unreasonable check with your local authority to see if a Section 60 notice is in existence and if there any stipulations regarding noise. A
. It might be the case that the local authority has determined the maximum amount of noise that can be created by the work. Remember that the companies undertaking such work are very responsible and have public relations departments that might try to find a way to minimise the noise output. Milton Keynes. This code can be obtained from the British Standards Institute. Linford Wood. The times that the work commences and ceases. It might also be useful to peruse the code of practice for noise control on Construction and Open Sites (BS 5228). However. sales department. MK14 6LE. for instance. There are probably a thousand and one sources of noise that can be heard in public. section 60(2) places a legal obligation on the local authority to consider the need to protect persons in the locality from the effects of noise.
Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993
It might be the case that the noise in the public domain might not come form such works.
However. even a busker playing an out of tune trombone. a refrigeration until on a lorry going all night.
The Act appears to be quite comprehensive in where the noise is created. footway.neighbour repairing cars outside his home. a person uses a portable generator to provide
. It is unsure whether the Act would cover a park or village green. This definition would suggest that the public area is more or less of an urban character. the faulty car alarm.”
This definition can cover a whole host of noise making things. square or court that is for the time being open to the public.
The Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993 extends the statutory nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to. for instance. machinery or equipment in a street. The only exception to the Act is the noise made by traffic or by a political demonstration or a demonstration supporting or opposing a campaign or cause.
“Noise that is prejudicial to health or a nuisance and is emitted from or caused by a vehicle. A ‘street’ for the purposes of the Act includes a highway and any other road. So if. bear in mind that any such noise might be subject to the defence of ‘best practicable means’.
Nonetheless. has through various directives.
Road traffic law creates specific offences relating to noise which include 'the use of a motor vehicle on a road in such a manner as to cause excessive noise which could have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable care on the part of the driver.electricity.' The driver or owner must also ensure that the silencer is working in an efficient manner otherwise he commits an offence. Imagine trying to control the noise made by a busy motorway. To a lesser extent.
. attempted to quieten the noise made by newly manufactured motor vehicles. which have been implemented by the UK government. the generator he uses might be best that the current state of scientific knowledge has to offer. The European Union. attempts been made to reduce the impact of road noise. you as an individual might be in a position to do something about those drivers who intentionally use their motor vehicles to disturb the peace.
At first instance it might seem an impossible task to reduce the noise made by road traffic. for instance.
30 pm and 7 am. bell.
Where motor horns are concerned. a moving vehicle cannot sound its horn in a restricted road between 11.
Driving without reasonable care or consideration for other road is perhaps a 'catch all' offence
. gong or two-tone horn. However. Furthermore. restricted roads. Only emergency vehicles. it is an offence to operate a motor horn when the vehicle is stationary unless there is danger from another vehicle. The majority of urban roads are. A restricted road is lit by lamps placed not more than 200 metres apart. This is often known as quitting. may use a siren. such as a generator attached to a motor vehicle can be an irritating source of nuisance.The idling of a vehicle engine or machinery. is necessary to carry out the purpose of the vehicle. such as a tail lift. The driver leaves the motor vehicle stopped and unattended with the engine running. there are exceptions to this offence if there is a qualified driver aboard the vehicle. the vehicle is stuck in traffic. therefore.
We have all probably been startled by those drivers who show off by sounding a 'Colonel Bogey' type horns. the machinery has deranged or the machinery. such as the police. These types of devices are strictly prohibited on vehicles first used after 1st August 1973.
such as 'sleeping policemen' designed to slow vehicles down. The continual revving of a loud engine is perhaps one instance. There might be circumstances in which a driver has a complete disregard for other drivers and pedestrians. that a number of local residents might have more influence than a single individual.
The police have the responsibility for prosecuting drivers who allegedly commit these offences. the regional or island council) Remember. which requires a local authority to reduce the level of road traffic. The result of these two pieces of legislation is various schemes.
A further way an individual might use the law to minimise the impact of traffic noise is by traffic management.
.for those who use vehicle noise to alarm or distress other persons using the road. convenient and safe movement of vehicles. If you feel that the level of road traffic noise is far to high contact your local councillor or local authority traffic management section. The local authority is empowered under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to secure the expeditious. (In Scotland. This Act has been supplemented by the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997. Drivers using small streets as 'rat runs' to avoid congestion perhaps becoming a common feature of urban life. Your own ideas of how the traffic can be controlled might be most welcome.
This has been supplemented by provisions contained in the Civil Aviation Act 1982. which having regard to wind. the section the action will no succeed if the aircraft flies at a height above the ground.
Section 76(2) goes on to cover 'material loss caused to any person or property on land or
. it might be appropriate for smaller aircraft. which appear to fly far too low. such as microlight aircraft. weather and all the circumstances is reasonable.Aeroplanes
The main thrust of the legal measures to curb aircraft noise is largely the responsibility of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. This same also gives a legal right to individuals who suffer some loss due to the movement of aircraft. which are strictly monitored by air traffic control.
Section 76 of the Act allows an action for any nuisance or trespass caused by the aircraft. which allows airports to fine noisy aircraft. This measure might not meet with the routine flights to and from airports. However. which has progressively reduced the amount of noise a particular type of aircraft can create. However. the aircraft is not being flown in a dangerous manner and the aircraft complies with any provision of an Air Navigation Order.
you can submit a claim to the Ministry of Defence. an airport must allow the public to have their say in running the airport.
By law. PL(LS) Claims. or an article. However. the defence of our country can outweigh the momentary loud roar. if your loss. A sonic boom that damages roof tiles. the law is far from certain as to whether noise would create liability. Of course. Claims Branch. However. animal or person falling from an aircraft while in flight.
No doubt we have been on holiday or touring a mountainous part of the country when suddenly a military jet aircraft suddenly overflies. If you do feel aggrieved at what you perceive as noisy operations try to contact the committee or one its representatives. is a case in point but has never been legally challenged. is substantial usually the frightening of livestock . This is facilitated by an Airport Consultative Committee. It is not unusual for a local councillor to be a member of the committee. high Holborn. injury or damage. or by a person in. Check if your local airport has such a committee in existence. for instance. First Avenue House. London WC1V 6HE. taking off or landing.water." This measure would appear to cover a piece of ice falling from an aircraft damaging one's home.
The use of motor powered watercraft on our normally tranquil lakeside environments highlights one of the environmental dilemmas we face in our populous country. If so. However. such as a speed limit. which
. then attempt to identity the offending craft. chess.
We now live in a society in which people either have the time or the money (or both) to indulge in leisure pursuits. The Countryside Act 1968 has made some effort to preserve the lakeside environment from excessive noise. Some forms of entertainment or leisure are traditional and in the case of past times such as bowling. such as car rallying. Someone's pleasure is also someone else's annoyance. In some instances. Section 13(1) of the Act authorises a local planning authority whose area includes the whole or any part of a National Park to make bylaws to prohibit or restrict traffic of any description on any lake in a national park. this might be regarded by many as a reward for their labours. try to establish if the local planning authority have imposed a bylaw.
If you are disturbed by excessively noisy speedboats. quietness is a necessary requirement of the game. some like their entertainment loud or indulge in pursuits. snooker. the craft has to be registered with the authorities and display a registration number. Of course.
and you are bombarded with a cacophony of noise.
(3) This paragraph does not apply -
. The legislation gives the local authority the power to prescribe conditions for the licence. the following sources of law might offer some help to you.are inherently noisy. However.(3) provides
(1) An entertainment to which this paragraph applies shall not be provided in any place except under and in accordance with the terms of a licence granted under this paragraph by the appropriate authority. Section 1(1) . Go to any fair. for instance. It would seem that there is an ever-increasing need to create noise as part of the overall entertaining experience.
Licence Schedule 1 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 makes provision for the licensing of public entertainment. if you feel that you can no longer tolerate noise from entertainments. therefore.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below. this paragraph applies to public dancing or music or any other public entertainment of a like kind. The notice might contain. conditions that limit the noise emitted by the entertainment.
(c) to an entertainment which takes place wholly or mainly in the open air.
The Act is only aimed at venues. The various acts of street entertainers found in many city centres might still be regarded as entertainment though.
Where any entertainment is a public musical entertainment and takes place on private premises or public land wholly or mainly in the open air.(a) to any music . paragraph 3 identifies the activities subject to the Act.
. Those who entertain in the public domain are a notable exception to the Act. For the purposes of licensing such events. or (ii) performed as an incident of a religion meeting or service. It is not a personal licensing system. the local authority must first resolve to invoke paragraph 3 and 4 of Schedule 1 to come into force on a day specified in the resolution. Moreover.(i) in a place of religious worship.
(b) to an entertainment held in a pleasure fair. The paragraph stipulates that. those who reside next to land where a pleasure fair traditionally visits or is a permanent feature could argue that this statutory exception is an important omission.
Section 4 of the Act requires the imposition of any terms or conditions to ensure the outdoor entertainment complies with the following
. occupier or lessee.
land is private if the public has access to it (whether on payment or otherwise) only by permission of the owner. this allows the local authority to grant an entertainment licence in respect of one or more particular occasions as may be specified in the licence.
The general tenet of the ‘outdoor’ entertainment licence is the control of open-air musical concerts. whether limited to one day or extending over two days or more days. or
(b) to a religious service or meeting.
If the local council invoke these provisions. bazaar. exhibition. Where the entertainment is a mass spectacle. sporting or athletic event. display or other function or event of a similar character. merely because music is incidental to it.
This paragraph does not apply -
(a) to a garden fete.an entertainment is musical if music is a substantial ingredient. sale of work. chaos could ensue if restrictions are not placed on the conduct of the entertainment.
Perhaps the distinction that outdoor entertainment is subject to the priorities of section 4(b) reflects the potential of outdoor noise intruding into nearby premises. This could even go a far requiring the public address speakers being pointed away from residential areas or even
restricting the number of amplifier speakers. The openended nature of the terms and conditions allows practical resolutions. It is all within the discretion of the EHO.purposes. there are no fixed
. The local authority might stipulate in the licence the allowable decibel level for the noise output.
Paragraph (iv) is of significance to the potential noise sufferer.
(iv) for preventing persons in the neighbourhood being unreasonably disturbed by noise.
for securing the safety of performers at the entertainment
for securing adequate access of emergency vehicles.
(iii) for securing the provision of adequate sanitary appliances.
In this case. for example. except dancing (in any form)’ Some forms of sport might not fall within this definition. such as an upper noise output level. the promoter would have to seek an entertainment licence
. is a matter of intense debate as to whether it is a sport. which causes a hue and cry when animal are hunted or requires the firing of noisy weapons to kill or maim the animal. where a nonsporting event is held at sporting premises.parameters for noise limitation.’ Sport includes. ‘any game in which physical skill is the predominant factor and any form of physical recreation which is also engaged in for purposes of competition or display.
A distinction might be drawn between paragraph 1 and 2 provisions. section 2 of the Schedule 1 of the LG(MP)A 1982 extends licensing to what is termed ‘sports entertainment. Hunting. In some instances. An exception is created by section 2(2) where the sporting event that constitutes an entertainment is not the principal purpose for which the premises are used on that occasion. A rock group performing at a cricket ground is a prominent example.
In England and Wales. The event can be a one-off or a permanent occurrence. A further difficulty might be encountered by the definition of ‘sport. musical entertainers might perform at a sporting venue that is wholly open to the air.’ This is defined as any sporting event to which the public are invited as spectators.
“any permanent or temporary building and any tent or inflatable structure and includes a part of a building where the building is as sports complex but does not include a part of any other building. No premises can be used for ‘sports entertainment’ except in accordance with the terms and conditions of an entertainment licence.under paragraph 1. The term ‘premises’ means.”
The measure would necessarily include sport that is contained within premises For instance.
The question has to be viewed from several angles. on 19 October.V. The said section reads :-
. Some trades/business have a potentiality of being abused easily when they become danger to public peace tranquillity and order and create public nuisance inconvenience and hazard to normal social life. 1978. The increase in incidents of accidents on the streets with high mortality figures published every year. Even this right can be curtailed or regulated for an appropriate time or an appropriate place or generally. Increase of population is about three lacs every year. on 28 February. 1897 Citedby 2 docs Baldev Parsad Arya vs Union Of India And Ors. It is claimed in the counter-affidavit that the directions were issued in exercise of the powers conferred by the Delhi Police Act and Regulations in that regard. therefore. it is contended that Section 28(1)(b) of the Delhi Police Act. There is no fundamental right in the petitioners to use trolleys fitted with loudspeakers in the band. shows how movement of pedestrians and vehicles is becoming increasingly hazardous. These instructions were not addressed to the public but were only the departmental instructions. It is the contention of the petitioners that playing of music on the loudspeakers fitted on trolleys is done with the intention of 'relaxation and glamour' and has become a social and customary practice for marriage celebrations. It is then pointed out by the respondents that pursuant to the said Regulations the petitioners ought to have obtained the prior permission to use the trolleys with loudspeakers but none of them had obtained the permission and are carrying on their business illegally. health and tranquillity has brought about a sea of change during the last twenty years. If there is a restriction that there cannot be a country liquor shop in the residential areas or near a school or in the public place of entertainment the restrictions/ preventions are really in public interest. But if he is moving with the marriage procession he will participate in the dance to the tune of the band and will forget that he is obstructing the traffic and movement of vehicles on a public street. for another reason. 1897 Section 23 in The General Clauses Act. The respondents on the other hand submit that the powers under Section 28 are necessary in public interest and were not arbitrary. 1861 ] 1 Section 28 in The General Clauses Act. inconvenience or nuisance to traffic on the roads. It is. and radio that the Police Commissioner has banned the movement of trolleys fitted with loudspeakers forming part of marriage processions with crooners singing film songs. it cannot be an argument against its prohibition after twenty years. was the result of (public complaints and) the experience of the Police in regard to use of loudspeakers. The public failure on self-discipline requires the authorities such as Police Authorities to take the preventive steps. It is claimed in the writ petition that after the said announcement on 16-5-1982 such a trolley fitted with loudspeaker belonging to 'Master Band' was seized by the Police. according to the petitioners is not legal also. Assuming that the Commissioner had issued an order prohibiting use of trolleys fitted with loudspeakers to be used by bands it is difficult to understand how validity of Section 28(1)(b) has been challenged in these proceedings. If there is self regulation there will be no necessity of any law in this area of public participation. The real difficulty in the traffic in Delhi is that there are not only fast moving vehicles. that it was not published in the concerned localities as required by the Act. The public attitude is very peculiar. The order. Driving is a great tension on number of roads and particularly the busy periods of the day. There is a right to carry on the business or trade of a band. Delhi was a comparatively clean city with big roads and sparse population providing peaceful and quiet life to its residents thirty years back. is ultra vires as it gives unguided arbitrary powers to Police authorities to prevent the use of loudspeakers. It is then stated that the assertion that thousands of persons are losing their livelihood made in the petition is unfounded as the business of running a band is not prohibited by the impugned order. which can be called a fundamental right is not here directly threatened in this case. These Regulations are called Union Territory of Delhi Loudspeakers (Licensing and Controlling) Regulations. Traffic accidents can be averted if the faculties of mind of the drivers of the vehicles are composed and alert. Lnk Gordhan vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. Vehicular traffic substantially adds persistently to air pollution and sound pollution. The first is phenomenal increase of population in Delhi in last twenty years. The hazards to public safety. It is also contended that on 12-5-1982 the Commissioner of Police issued instructions to all the District Commissioners of Police directing them that no permission for use of loudspeakers on trolleys/moving vehicles should be granted in future. As for the legal submissions. Every trade/profession gives livelihood to some people. Even assuming that running of a band is a fundamental right to carrying on trade and business. It is then claimed that a restriction on few people so as to achieve the general public interest would be a reasonable restriction. 1994 Ex. 5. I do not think that Section 28(1)(b) can be faulted on the ground that it violates Art. Even smuggling and dealing in narcotics provide livelihood to some people. such as cars and buses but very slow moving vehicles such as cycle rickshaws and hand driven carts moving side by side with the high speed vehicles. 2001 Blog Links powered by
Delhi High Court
Top of Form
Get this document in PDF
Bottom of Form
Equivalent citations: 1983 CriLJ 787 Bench: S Wad
Baldev Band And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 4/1/1983 ORDER 1. the order is bad in law. These petitions are filed by the proprietors of bands who use trolleys fitted with loudspeakers for use in marriage processions and similar processions.[View All] Section 28 in [ The Police Act. it cannot be said that there is a fundamental right in the use of every instrument in the band or the vehicles used or the number of loudspeakers used to make the band more loud than it normally is. Right to carry on trade. If a person is going in a vehicle and there is obstruction because of the marriage procession he will shout or call names. Marriage processions stopping at different corners for people to dance with a deafening band music is a regular sight for the residents of Delhi. 3. The other petitioners are allegedly working on the said trolleys and they earn their livelihood on the same. Loudspeakers on moving trolleys is a diversion of mind for a driver driving a vehicle on the crowded streets. 2. 1861 ] 1 The General Clauses Act. Right to carry on trade in liquor can be said to be one belonging to this category. 1897 [ The Police Act. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Even according to the petitioners use of loudspeakers in bands fitted on moving trolleys has come up in the last 15 years. The impugned order it is contended. Even assuming that the right to carry on trade/business of band includes the use of vehicles and the instruments like loudspeakers for increasing the sound I would hold that prevention of the use of trolleys fitted with loudspeakers in public processions is in public interest and reasonable. therefore no argument in law that some people who are allegedly used for pushing the trolleys will suffer because to use the trolleys in a band is itself not a fundamental right. It is also contended that the order in question has not been published in the official gazette as required by the Act and. The petition was filed on the basis of a news item published on 13-5-1982 and an announcement on T. It is also urged that the said section unreasonably restricts the right to carry on the trade/profession of bands (wherein trolleys fitted with loudspeakers are used) and thereby violates Art 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It is then claimed that the trolleys are too small to cause any obstruction. The increase in population has resulted in phenomenal increase of vehicular traffic on the streets. 4. 1980. If by public apathy or by the official negligence such use of trolleys with loudspeakers was allowed to continue.Cites 10 docs . namely. I do not think that any fundamental right of the petitioners is violated. The respondents further submit that there is no prohibition on the band being played on the public streets. Due to concentration of industries and thermal power stations there is air pollution and sound pollution which has increased to dangerous proportions. The source of power of the Commissioner in the present case is the Regulations framed by the Commissioner under Section 28(1)(s).
a vague attempt has been made in the rejoinder-affidavit to challenge the validity of the said statutory regulations." There is another sub-section. Considering the nature of the administration by the Police in regard to the traffic control and regulations. 6. annoyance risk. Where. What is the effect of reference to Section 23 of the General Clauses Act ? The counsel for the petitioners argues (although the point is not specifically taken in the writ petition or in the rejoinder affidavit) that as required by Section 23(1) of the General Clauses Act a draft of the proposed regulations was not published for the information of persons affected thereby and no opportunity was given to the petitioners and others to have their say against the draft proposed regulations. or by any two or more of these means. not a power but the duty of the Police Commissioner to prevent danger. if the condition with respect to previous publication so requires. and the use of streets and other public places by persons riding driving cycling walking or leading or accompanying cattle. The words "to prevent" are very clear to show that a total ban can be imposed on the use of loudspeakers as in the present case. Even there what is really prohibited is not the movement of trolley as a vehicle. The counsel submits that this is a mandatory requirement and also the requirement of natural justice. make regulations to provide for all or any of the following matters. Unless the petitioners challenge the legality and constitutionality of the regulations. There is a 'previous publication' as required by the Act. and every regulation made. or. publish a draft to the proposed rules or bye-laws for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby : (2) the publication shall be made in such manner as that authority deems to be sufficient. inconvenience. The question of arbitrariness or uncanalised nature of power varies with different types of administration and the nature of duties of a public authority." It may at once be seen that the sub-section is a general section for regulating traffic on streets. The regulations in question are had in law for violation of the mandatory requirements of Section 23 of the General Clauses Act and the principle of natural justice. obstruction or inconvenience to public. obstruction or inconvenience to the public on the streets. before making them. The petitioners' challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 28(1)(b). Urdu and English. work or place. Sub-section (o) of Section (1) which also must be noted. structure. The sub-section not only enumerates auto vehicles but also vehicles driven by cattle and movement of cattle themselves. 14 of the Constitution. (4) the authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws. prohibiting (iii) the using of a loudspeaker in or near any public place or in any place of public entertainment. after previous publication and for the purpose of Section 23 of the General Clauses Act. the powers given to the Commissioner by Section 28(1)(b) cannot be held to be arbitrary and unguided power. Therefore a specific reference is made to Section 23 of the General Clauses Act in Section 28(3) of the Delhi Police Act. and. shall consider any objection or suggestion which may be received by the authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws from any person with respect to the draft before the date so specified. The Regulations are also attacked on the ground that they give arbitrary power resulting into discrimination between persons and persons but there are no facts and grounds for sustaining this challenge. We are here concerned with a specific aspect of regulating traffic namely the use of trolleys fitted with loudspeakers. Sub-section (3) reads as follows :"The power of making regulations under this section shall be subject to the condition of the regulations being made. What is objectionable is the loudspeakers being moved from place to place blaring out music in a deafening sound. 8. That sub-section reads :"The Commissioner of Police may make regulations for "regulating traffic of all kinds in streets and other public places.The Commissioner of Police may by notification in the official Gazette. Section 28(1)(b) does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or being violative of Art. The sub-section naturally has to be worded in general terms so as to cover every action or movement resulting into danger. danger or damage to the residents or passengers. Not walking on the foot-paths and crossing streets at will without caring for the pedestrian crossings. such regulations shall be deemed to be rules. constitutional challenge of Section 28(1)(b) would be otiose. 28(3) ? It is then stated that the Regulations are ultra vires of the Act. Even after the filing of the counter affidavit to which the said regulations were annexed by the respondents the petitioners did not amend their writ petition so as to challenge the validity of the said regulations." 9. 1897 (10 of 1987). It has already been noted that the principal provisions under which the Commissioner is exercising the power in the present case is under Section 28(1)(o) & (s). Regulation of traffic is one of the essential functions of police in any city. 7. I have already held that use of trolleys fitted with loudspeakers moved in the processions causes obstruction inconvenience and risk to the traffic on the streets and the residents. Since S. Section 23 of the General Clauses Act refers to rules and bye-laws and not regulations. obstruction or inconvenience can be caused." Reading Sub-section (s) with Sub-section (o) of Section 28(1) it is clear that the Commissioner has the power to prevent use of loudspeakers near public places or in streets or near streets. where the rules or bye-laws are to be made with the sanction. I do not find any substance in the petitioners challenge to the validity of the said regulations. 28(1)(b) is directly not in issue the challenge is misconceived. The challenge of the petitioners is vague. Provision applicable to making of rules or bye-laws after previous publication. It is impossible to enumerate in how many ways danger obstruction and inconvenience can be caused to public on the streets. a power to make rules or bye-laws is expressed to be given subject to the condition of the rules or bye-laws being made after previous publication then the following provisions shall apply. to which the same specially relates or by proclaiming the same by the beating of drum or by advertising the same in such local newspapers in Hindi. namely :(1) the authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws shall. tom-toms or other instruments and the blowing or sounding of horns or other noisy instruments in or near streets or other public places. as the case may be. That section may also be noted. or by any other means he may think suitable : Provided that any such regulation may be made without previous publication if the Commissioner of Police is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary that such regulation should be brought into force atonce. However. annoyance risk. The first challenge to the regulations is that it is not promulgated by previous publications as required by Section 28(3). But it must be remembered that we
. annoyance risk. The section reads :"Licensing controlling or in order to prevent obstruction. therefore." Section 28(3) refers of Section 23 of the General Clauses Act. can also cause obstruction and inconvenience to the public. There is no doubt that Section 23 of the General Clauses Act requires the draft regulations to be published for ascertaining the views of the persons affected. or in two or more of these languages. (5) the publication in the official Gazette of a rule or bye-laws purporting to have been made in exercise of a power to make rules or bye-laws after previous publication shall be conclusive proof that the rule or bye-law has been duly made. inconvenience. that authority also. so as to prevent danger obstruction or inconvenience to the public. approval or concurrence of another authority. It is no argument in law that the petitioners were not aware of the statutory regulations. But even assuming that the pleadings including the rejoinder-affidavit should be liberally construed. If the duties are too plenary in nature or too vast and unlimited. the powers conferred are also put in broader generalisations. prohibiting the playing of music. To put it in simple form the purport of the Delhi Police Act is as follows :The Regulations are required to be published at two stages and two different modes. or by any two or more of these means. 10. danger or damage to the residents or passengers in the vicinity. As stated earlier the immediate source of the power of Police Commissioner is the statutory regulations framed by him under Section 28. by any (Central Act) or Regulation. The object of such prevention contemplated by the Section is to ensure that there is no obstruction. The statutory regulations are deemed to be rules fro the purposes of Section 23 of the General Clauses Act 1897. "licensing controlling or in order to prevent obstruction. Challenge to Section 28(1)(b) is also misconceived for another reason. shall also be published in the locality affected thereby by affixing copies thereof in conspicuous places near to the building. It is said that there is no publication of the Regulations as required by Section 23(3). under this section. The statement in the rejoinder-affidavit that they were not published in the official Gazette is patently wrong. as the Commissioner of Police may deem fit. the beating of drums. The regulations were duly published in the official Gazette. It is. danger or damage to the residents or passengers in the vicinity. The writ petition does not challenge the constitutional validity of the said regulations. But even assuming that the part of prohibition falls under Section 28(1)(b) I do not think that the said sub-section gives unguided or uncanalised powers to the Police Commissioner. There is a subsequent publication after the regulations are made in the localities which are affected by the regulations. inconvenience. namely. It was for the petitioners to find out the provisions of law including the statutory regulations and prefer a specific challenge. namely. The regulations were published in the official Gazette as required by Section 23(1) of the Delhi Police Act. "23. in such manner as the (Government concerned) prescribed : (3) there shall be published with the draft a notice specifying a date on or after which the draft will be taken into consideration. It is impossible to give an exhaustive list of the methods or manners or persons or vehicles by which a danger.
Taking liquor for marriage processions is also becoming common. however. Admittedly. Petition dismissed.are not examining the requirements of S. There is no wonder that this is setting a new social pattern of celebrating marriages and less affluent people are forced to follow this pattern for the fear of not being laughed at Bands accompanied by trolleys fitted with loudspeakers blaring out rock or disco music at a deafening tune is a part of this neo-culture. (k) and sub-Clause (m). illegal transfer of lands and profiteering are freely practiced by the citizens. is common sight in Delhi. Blocking public roads. Such petitioners cannot be heard now to challenge the ban on the use of loudspeakers on trolleys. annoyance. Now the requirements regarding publications in Section 23(28 ?) are to be read subject to the proviso. This leaves us to the argument of the petitioners that music played on bands and the loudspeakers has become a part of the social celebrations of marriages in Delhi. orders regarding consumption of electricity and municipal regulations regarding non-encroachment on public streets. celebrate the marriages with the same fan fare. Playing of music on such occasions is understandable but traditionally only Sehnai is played as an auspicious music in Delhi and around. 11. sub-clause (t). There are number of provisions in Section 28(3) for which the regulations made would have immediate effect as if they were administrative orders. in all walks of life. It is asserted in the writ petition that the marriage season is usually from July to December in Delhi and the people start placing orders on the bands for couple of months in advance. The petitioners have nowhere averred that they went to the Police Authorities with an application for permission under the Regulations. violation of traffic signals and parking of vehicles at will. the authorities must take effective steps to prevent them. arranging cocktail parties on the eve of marriage. particularly in rich houses of Delhi. the Police are required to act with one eye permanently fixed on the bureaucratic and political bosses from time to time. inconvenience. of disregarding law. It has also been observed that trellis fitted with loudspeakers which move ahead of the marriage procession have become a major source of inconvenience to the public in Delhi. 15. Provision of the second publication in Section 28(3) appears to be more aimed as such provisions in Section 28(3) which are self executing. 500/. This is the culture of neo-rich who use these occasions for spending unaccounted money. Running of Universities and educational institutions and industrial establishments is becoming difficult without the police aid. In fact they claim complete ignorance of the said regulations in the writ petition. In fact the petition is based only on such a paper report. Celebrations of marriages in Five-Star Hotels. in public interest and within the framework of law should be encouraged.
. Apart from these habits of the residents of Delhi is spreading far and wide without any limits. therefore. The petitioners have themselves admitted that none of the bands had obtained permission from the Commissioner as required by the regulations. Can it be said with any seriousness that this cheap and vulgar display of wealth is a part of our culture or for that matter of any civilized society ? It is said that Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru had once described Delhi as big village. Lack of civic sense and respect for legal regulations on the part of the citizens. sub-cl. risk or danger to general public. abuse of Government concessions in the allotment of shops and factory premises. There was also a practice of dance with music programmes. This is a clear admission of the illegal use of the trolleys fitted with loudspeakers being made by the bands in Delhi for the last two years. the object of which is to invite representations from affected persons can be dispensed with in an emergency by virtue of the proviso. All this outward show is done in total disregard of law in relation to Guest Control Orders. Delhi Police are required to work under unusual constraint and difficulties. Without going into the correctness of these averments the petition can be decided. Running of commercial of industrial units illegally in the residential areas. 12. The citizens of Delhi have miles to go to develop civic sense to justify the claim of a metropolitan town and particularly as a Capital of this nation. Examples of sub-cl. 14. The permission was necessary to enforce partial control and regulation and when this system failed the Commissioner took the present decision. 23 of the General Clauses Act independently. Coming now to the actual order banning the use of loudspeakers fitted on trolleys it is seen that the explanation of the Commissioner of Police in the impugned order (R-1) and (R-3) is quite reasonable and convincing.in each petition. x(iv). 13. it can certainly be argued that the Commissioner can dispense with the subsequent publication which is only meant for general information. hold that the Commissioner of Police was within his legal powers to dispense with the previous publication of the draft regulations and the same cannot be challenged in an indirect manner at such late stage.V. Any effort on their part to regulate the civic life in Delhi. Marriage season is now over and no financial interest are likely to suffer if the petitioners and the other bands stop the practice of using trolleys fitted with loudspeakers. The petitioners' contention that the regulations were never put in operation and that there was no procedure or machinery for the enforcement of the regulations created is also without any substance. It is interesting to note that no member of the public as such has come before this court as a petitioner making this assertion. this nuisance has assumed alarming proportion. Enforcement of civic duties and enforcement of legal order is thus a Herculean task for Delhi Police. spending huge amounts on shamianas. Now. These illegal practises usually acquire menacing proportion and develop into a law and order problem. Being a Police force in the Capital. If the petitioners had challenged the validity of the regulations on these grounds in the petition the Commissioner would have got an opportunity to explain the circumstances in his counter-affidavit but that was not done by the petitioners. This is what the citizens of Delhi must ponder upon seriously and act by self regulation to prevent it. is almost a natural habit for citizens. illegal use of load of electricity for industrial purposes." It is thus clear that after publications of the regulations in 1980 and with the experience of illegal use of the loudspeakers the Police Commissioner came to the conclusion that total prohibition of loudspeakers used on vehicles should be imposed. It is a matter of common knowledge that playing of film music on brass bands and dancing in the processions has become common only recently. The petitioners have themselves admitted that the impugned order was published in the newspapers and on the T. Executive Orders are issued under the regulations as in the present case for putting into operation a part of the general power the publication of such an administrative order will be meaningful. Jumping queues at the bus stops. The petition is filed primarily by the proprietors of the business of bands whose financial interest is allegedly threatened by the present prohibition. Delhi has perhaps an all India. It was claimed that the impugned order had come up suddenly so as to upset even the then existing contracts. Publication in the official Gazette in the present circumstances was sufficient compliance of the requirement of second publication in Section 28(3). Counsel fees Rs. The oncoming season of marriage was perhaps the reason for the Division Bench to give partial protection to the use of trolleys fitted with loudspeakers during the pendency of the writ petition. Freely using trolleys fitted with loudspeakers without permission (as required by Regulations) of the Police authorities is a part of this habit. the requirement regarding the previous publication can be dispensed with. a new culture is coming in vogue. Although marriage is a solemn sacrament/or a contract it has become an occasion for gaiety and group enjoyment." In Annexure R-3 it is also stated : "Some of the persons usually use the three wheeler scooters fitted with loudspeakers for political propaganda. on the contrary they have said that none of the bands had taken any such permission. It is therefore felt imperative to take appropriate action against those causing public nuisance. The leaders of the society. The police force is not commensurately manned or equipped. the regulations were framed in 1980. Apart from causing general public nuisance. It is too late in the day to call upon the Commissioner of Police to explain as to why he was satisfied that the Regulations should come into force at once. Presentation of gifts is degenerating into extraction of dowries and collection of imported goods. illuminations and marriage dinners are being done on large scale. record of bride burning case. create perpetual problems for the Police force. Encroachments on public lands and illegal constructions has become the order of the day. and radio. the bands and band-wagons notwithstandin. A reference to Section 23 of the General Clauses Act in Section 28(3) of the Delhi Police Act and the said requirement of publication of the proposed draft regulation has been incorporated by the well known legislative practice of legislating by reference. Life of law is experience of social realities. The (sic) validity of the said regulations on the ground of non-publication of the draft is being made after two years of the publication of the regulations. The proviso stated that where the Commissioner of Police is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary that such regulation should be brought into force at once. The challenges should have been made immediately after the publication of the regulations in the Gazette in 1980 itself. But in so far as these practices tend to violate law and result into obstruction. Where. The requirement of the publication of the draft thus forms part and parcel of Section 28(3) of the Delhi Police Act. In Annexure R-1 it is stated "Instructions have been issued from time to time regarding unauthorised use of loudspeakers which cause inconvenience to the public at large. This requirement can be appreciated where the object of regulation is limited to a particular or specific locality but where the entire area of Delhi is covered by a regulation such minor modes of publication by beat of drums or by an advertisement in the local newspaper are not of much avail. by erecting shamianas. I. It may be noted if previous publication of a draft regulation. sub-Clause (z) can be cited. The second publication expected in Section 28(3) is the publication in the localities affected. The writ petition is dismissed with costs. The stay order is also vacated. the users of the vehicles give a chance of retaliation to the party (s) against whom the propaganda is conducted.