JUDGMENT : Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. By this Special Civil Application, the writ-petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent No.1 to immediately stop the noise pollution and pollution of cotton which is coming out of the respondent No.1 Mill compound by directing the Police Authority to take necessary steps against the respondent No.1. 2. In this writ-petition, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation ["AMC", hereafter] and the Gujarat Pollution Control Board ["GPCB", hereafter] are made respondents No.2 and 3 respectively. 3. The case made out by the petitioner may be summed up thus:- 3.1 The respondent No.1 is a Mill which started in the residential vicinity of the petitioner for the last 3 years and after starting a textile unit in the residential area, it has installed new textile machineries which are creating massive noise. According to the petitioner, the noise of the blowers of the machines situated in the mill is utterly unbearable. According to the petitioner, he made several complaints to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and consequently, the respondent No.3 initiated proceedings and issued a notice to show cause against the respondent No.1 and even during the pendency of proceedings of such show cause notice, the respondent No.2 had levied penalty upon the respondent No.1 for making huge noise. However, in spite of that, the respondent No.1 continues with such noise. The petitioner, therefore, issued a legal notice dated 25th June 2013 through an Advocate and the same is received by the respondent No.1 and even then, the respondent No.1 continued to make the noise pollution. 4. The GPCB has entered appearance in the proceedings thereby contending that after the receipt of the complaint made by the petitioner, it made inspection of the respondent No.1 Mill on 29th June 2013 and during the said inspection, cotton dusts were found near the Society of the petitioner and the nearby areas. The respondent No.1 had also not applied for Consolidated Consents and Authorisation ["CCA", hereafter]. According to the GPCB, at the time of inspection, the officers of the respondent No.1 informed that the filter cloth of the rotary drum was accidentally damaged and due to this, cotton dusts were spread in the nearby areas. It was further informed that the said filter cloth had been immediately changed. According to the GPCB, at the time of inspection, the officers of the respondent No.1 informed that the filter cloth of the rotary drum was accidentally damaged and due to this, cotton dusts were spread in the nearby areas. It was further informed that the said filter cloth had been immediately changed. 4.1 GPCB has further averred that based on the above report, it issued a show cause notice dated 18th September 2013 to the respondents No.1, directing it to show cause as to why the respondent No.1 Mill be not issued closure-order for violations mentioned in the said notice. By the said notice, the respondent No.1 was also asked to make an application for CCA within 15 days. 4.2 Subsequently, the officers of GPCB inspected the respondent No.1 Mill again on 30th September 2013 and it was found that the respondent No.1 was carrying on manufacturing process without CCA and it was also found that the noise level was high due to operation of blower fan installed in the premises of the respondent No.1-Mill for humidification. In such circumstances, the GPCB directed the respondent No.1 to close the manufacturing process within 30 days from the date of the said order. 4.3 On 19th November 2013, the respondent No.1-Mill applied for CCA before the Regional Office of GPCB and on 21st November 2013, officers of the GPCB again visited the Mill for carrying out inspection and the said application for CCA along with the inspection report was sent to the Head Office of GPCB on 3rd December 2013 for taking final decision on the said application for CCA. 4.4 After applying for CCA, the respondent No.1-Mill had applied for revocation of the closure order on 20th November 2013 in the prescribed format along with relevant documents and undertakings. 4.4 After applying for CCA, the respondent No.1-Mill had applied for revocation of the closure order on 20th November 2013 in the prescribed format along with relevant documents and undertakings. According to the GPCB, as per the prevailing practice followed by it, once the application for CCA was filed, the closure order issued to the concerned industry is revoked for a period of 3 months during which the application for CCA is decided on the basis of compliance of undertaking and conditions of revocation order etc., and as per the said practice, the GPCB revoked the closure order dated 22nd October 2013 subject to the condition that the respondent No.1-Mill would comply with the conditions that may be specified in the CCA as well as the undertaking given by it and upon a further condition that it would take all necessary further steps to control the air and noise pollution. 4.5 According to the GPCB, even thereafter, the problem of noise pollution continued and, therefore, the GPCB had issued a show cause notice dated 2nd December 2013 to the respondent No.1-Mill directing it to regulate the noise caused by the humidification plant and blower rooms or any other activity so that ambient air quality standard in respect of noise is maintained. 4.6 The GPCB has further stated that the competent authority will decide the CCA of the respondent No.1 after analysis of effluent from the respondent No.1 Mill. Moreover, as the noise pollution emanating from the respondent No.1 mills is not being controlled, the said CCA has not yet been issued to the respondent No.1-Mill and the GPCB has also addressed another letter dated 17th December 2013 asking the respondent No1-Mill to submit details of further steps taken by it to reduce noise level as mentioned in the revocation order. 5. The defence of the respondent No.1-Mill is that it is a unit of the National Textile Corporation (Gujarat) Limited ["the Corporation", hereafter. The said Corporation was declared as a "Sick Industrial Undertaking" under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 [SICA, hereafter]. The case of the Corporation was registered as Case No. PSU(C) 535/92 with the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction ["BIFR", hereafter] and upon merger of the Corporation with the National Textile Corporation, the proceedings were merged in Case No. 501 of 2008. The case of the Corporation was registered as Case No. PSU(C) 535/92 with the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction ["BIFR", hereafter] and upon merger of the Corporation with the National Textile Corporation, the proceedings were merged in Case No. 501 of 2008. 5.1 The BIFR at its meeting held on 17th November 2011 approved the extension of implementation period of the sanctioned scheme and tenure of Asset Sale Committee up to 31st March 2012 and thereafter, the tenure of the sanctioned scheme has been extended up to 31st March 2015. According to the respondent No.1-Mill, the plot on which the mill is situated falls under the Industrial Zone General -1G Zone, as per the Zoning Certificate issued by the respondent No.2, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. According to the respondent No.1, it is strictly complying with the norms and concentration of Noise in ambient air within its premises as prescribed in the Consent to Establish issued by the GPCB which is 75 dB(A) between 6.00 a.m. and 10.00 p.m. and 70 dB(A) between 10.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. The respondent No.1 has also filed an application for CCA to the GPCB on 19th November 2013 in the prescribed form along with the requisite fees and has taken various steps for control of air and noise pollution. According to the respondent No.1, various other textile mills are situated near the residential premises and other Engineering units were also situated near the respondent No.1. It is the further case of the respondent No.1 that it is not situated in a residential area but it is in Industrial Area/Industrial Zone. The Delhi- Ahmedabad Railway line, which has heavy traffic during day and night hours, is situated near the respondent Mill and residential area of the petitioner. Ahmedabad International Airport is also situated about 5-7 kms. away and as the flights are flying at a lower level, there is more noise in the entire area. Thus, according to the respondent No.1, the residential societies are surrounded by about 80 engineering units and other industrial units including the respondent No.1 Mill. 6. During the hearing of this petition, the GPCB has made several inspections at the respondent No.1-Mill and it appears that at the Spinning Section, the average noise level is 90.41 dB(A) and the average noise level at the weaving section is 93.17 dB(A). 7. 6. During the hearing of this petition, the GPCB has made several inspections at the respondent No.1-Mill and it appears that at the Spinning Section, the average noise level is 90.41 dB(A) and the average noise level at the weaving section is 93.17 dB(A). 7. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has placed before us documents showing that the respondent No.1 is situated within "industrial area" and immediately thereafter, there is a road of 40 ft. width and thereafter there are residential units, and the residential units start from the house of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no dispute that the respondent No.1 Mill is situated at the border line of the "industrial area" and "residential area" intervened by a road of 40 ft. width. 8. Mr. Shukla, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 strenuously contended before us that in order to consider whether his client has really violated the norms, the measurement of the noise should be taken not within the factory premises but at the boundary of the factory premises and if it is found that at the boundary of the factory premises the noise level is within the prescribed limit, his client cannot be held guilty. In other words, according to Mr. Shukla, although near the blower, the noise level may be more than the prescribed limit, the same is very much within the limit if measurement is taken from the boundary of his clients premises, and, therefore, this application should fail. 9. In order to appreciate the question involved in this writ application, it will be profitable to refer to rule 2(B), rule 13 and Schedule of the Noise Pollution Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, [the Rules, hereafter] which are quoted below: 2[b]"area/zone" means all areas which fall in either of the four categories given in the Schedule annexed to these rules; xxx xxx xxx 3. Ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones-- [1] The ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones shall be such as specified in the Schedule annexed to these rules. (2) The State Government shall categorize the areas into industrial commercial, residential or silence areas/zones for the purpose of implementation of noise standards for different areas. (2) The State Government shall categorize the areas into industrial commercial, residential or silence areas/zones for the purpose of implementation of noise standards for different areas. (3) The State Government shall take measures for abatement of noise including noise emanating from vehicular movements blowing of horns, bursting of sound emitting fire crackers, use of loud speakers or public address system and sound producing instruments and ensure that the existing noise levels do not exceed the ambient air quality standards specified under these rules. (4) All development authorities, local bodies and other concerned authorities while planning developmental activity or carrying out functions relating to town and country planning shall take into consideration all aspects of noise pollution as a parameter of quality of life to avoid noise menace and to achieve the objective of maintaining the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise. (5) An area comprising not less than 100 metres around hospitals, educational institutions and courts may be declared as silence area/zone for the purpose of these rules. xxx xxx xxx Schedule (See Rule 3(1) and 4(1)) Ambient Air Quality Standards in respect of Noise Area Category of Area/Zone Limits in dB[A] Leq Code Day Time Night Time (A) Industrial area 75 70 (B) Commercial area 65 55 (C) Residential area 55 45 (D) Silence zone 50 40 Note:- 1. Day time shall mean from 6.00 a.m. To 10.00 p.m. 2. Night time shall mean from 10.00 p.m. To 6.00 a.m. 3. Silence zone is an area comprising not less than 100 metres around hospitals, educational institutions, courts, religious places or any other area which is declared as such by the competent authority. 4. Mixed categories of areas may be declared as one of the four above mentioned categories by the competent authority. dB[A] Leq denotes the time weighted average of the level of sound in decibels on scale A which is relatable to human hearing. A "decibel" is a unit in which noise is measured. "A" in dB[A] Leq, denotes the frequency weighting in the measurement of noise and corresponds to frequency response characteristics of the human ear. Leq: It is an energy mean of the noise level over a specified period. 10. A "decibel" is a unit in which noise is measured. "A" in dB[A] Leq, denotes the frequency weighting in the measurement of noise and corresponds to frequency response characteristics of the human ear. Leq: It is an energy mean of the noise level over a specified period. 10. From the above provisions of the Rules, it is clear that the noise level within industrial area is 75 dB(A) during day time and 70 dB(A) during night time, and the area means "all areas which fall in either of the four categories given in the Schedule annexed to these rules". Therefore, the maximum noise level prescribed in the Schedule for each area should be maintained at every inch of the areas which falls within the zone concerned. In other words, it is not permissible to accept the contention of Mr. Shukla that though at the originating point, the noise level is above the limit, if that noise level comes within the limit at the boundary of the mill, that will be sufficient. According to the mandate of the above rule, the noise level should be limited to be maximum prescribed limit throughout the area concerned and even at the originating point within the factory premises. 11. Mr. Shukla, lastly, by relying upon the provisions contained in the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963, enacted under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, made a desperate submission before us that according to Schedule XXIII which provides for operations involving high noise levels, "high noise level" means any noise level measured on the A-weighted scale is 90 decibel or above and thus, in case of conflict between the Gujarat Factories Rules and the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, the provisions of the rules framed under the Factories Act will prevail if the source of the noise is the machineries of a factory. We are afraid, we are not impressed by such submission because the object of the Factories Act and the Rules framed thereon is different from one provided under the Pollution Control laws. The authorities under the Factories Act cannot decide the question of violation of the Rules framed under the Noise Pollution law and the aforesaid provision under the Factories Act is meant for the health of the workers who are employed in the factories so that adequate measures are taken for protection of the health of the workmen. The authorities under the Factories Act cannot decide the question of violation of the Rules framed under the Noise Pollution law and the aforesaid provision under the Factories Act is meant for the health of the workers who are employed in the factories so that adequate measures are taken for protection of the health of the workmen. Therefore, an ordinary individual who is not the employer or the employee of the Factory is entitled to demand strict compliance of the rules framed under the noise pollution law where the noise level is lower than the one prescribed in the Gujarat Factories Rules for the purpose of his grievance on pollution under the noise control regulation. 12. We have already pointed out that the factory of the respondent No.1 is situated just at the border line of residential area where limit of noise pollution is much less. Such being the position, it is the duty of the owner of a factory who establishes his industry just at the border of a residential area to be more careful to see that even after complying with the requirements of noise level prescribed under the Rule, the same does not violate the level prescribed for adjoining residential area when the noise arising from his factory reaches the residential zone. In this case, at a distance of 40 ft. from the boundary of the factory premises, residential building of the petitioner being situated, it is the duty of the respondent No.1 to see that noise emitted from its factory does not cross the noise level fixed for residential area, if the noise of the factory is measured at the boundary of the residential zone. 13. We, thus, find no substance in the contention of Mr. Shukla that his client has not violated the norms prescribed by law. We have already pointed out that the GPCB, after inspection of the premises of the respondent no. 1, has already issued a show cause notice, and once it has appeared that even after filing of CCA application, the earlier order of closure has been suspended, and the respondent no. 1 could not bring the noise level below the maximum limit, we direct the GPCB to pass immediate direction of closure of its unit for noncompliance of the norms prescribed under the noise pollution laws. 1 could not bring the noise level below the maximum limit, we direct the GPCB to pass immediate direction of closure of its unit for noncompliance of the norms prescribed under the noise pollution laws. However, it will be open for the respondent No.1 to take remedial measures by making arrangement by installing sophisticated machineries so that the noise level comes within the limit prescribed by law, and thereafter, it can pray for permission to restart the Mill on trial basis, if the GPCB is satisfied that after taking remedial measures, the noise pollution level is within the limit prescribed by law. We make it clear that the level of noise, in no case, should exceed the limit fixed for industrial zone at any part of the factory and even at the originating place, viz. the blower and the machineries. 14. We, thus, allow this writ-application and direct the GPCB not to permit the respondent No.1 to run the factory so long the requirements under the relevant noise pollution laws are strictly complied with. 14.1 The writ-application is, thus, allowed with the above directions. In the facts of the case, there shall be, however, no order as to costs. Further Order: After this judgment was pronounced, Mr. Shukla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 prays for stay of operation of our above judgment. In view of what has been stated above, we find no reason to stay the operation of our judgment. The prayer is, thus, refused. However, if applied for, certified copy be given positively by today. Writ Petition Allowed.