Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1750 (BOM)

AWAAZ FOUNDATION v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2017-08-24

A.S.OKA, RIYAZ I.CHAGLA

body2017
ORDER : 1. This group of PILs except PIL St.No.24110 of 2017 was disposed of by a Judgment and Order dated 10, 11, 12 and 16th August 2016. 2. It is undisputed that as per the Administrative Order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 18th November 2016, these disposed of petitions were ordered to be placed for considering compliance before a Division Bench of which one of us (A.S. Oka, J.) is a member. Thereafter, from time to time, orders have been passed dealing with the issue of compliance. These petitions were listed on 22nd August 2017 for considering compliance. On that day, an affidavit was filed by the State Government of Smt. Archana Shirke, Under Secretary of the Environment Department placing on record the notification dated 10th August 2017. On the basis of the said notification and on the basis of the statements made in the affidavit of Smt. Shirke, on 22nd August 2017, a contention was raised by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State Government that a particular declaration granted under the final Judgment and the directions issued on the basis of the said declaration regarding silence zone under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control), Rules 2000 has been rendered inoperative and therefore, need not be complied with. The said declaration is in clause (xii) of paragraph 93 of the final Judgment which reads thus : "(xii) In view of Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 3, silence zone comprises of an area within the distance of 100 meters around hospitals, educational institutions and Courts. As educational institutions, hospitals and Courts have been defined in Rule 2, for applicability of Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 3, it is not necessary to have a specific declaration issued in respect of the silence zone around hospitals, educational institutions and Courts. As it is clear from clause 3 of the Schedule, only in the event of any other area or additional area (over and above 100 meters) is to be declared as a silence zone, a specific declaration will be necessary. On plain reading of Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 3, a silence zone means an area of 100 meters on all sides of precincts of educational institutions, hospitals, religious places and Courts and not the area within the precincts of the said institutions." 3. On plain reading of Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 3, a silence zone means an area of 100 meters on all sides of precincts of educational institutions, hospitals, religious places and Courts and not the area within the precincts of the said institutions." 3. As can be seen from the Judgment, the contention of the State Government was that unless a particular area is specifically declared as a silence zone, the same cannot be termed as a silence zone. It cannot be disputed that SLP (Civil) was preferred by the State Government before the Apex Court challenging the final Judgment and Order. One of the grounds of challenge was that the view taken by this Court that an area falling within the distance of 100 meters from precincts of educational institutions, hospitals, religious places and Courts constitute a silence zone within the meaning of the said Rules though there is no specific declaration made by the State Government. It is also not in dispute that the said SLP has been summarily dismissed on 17th February 2017 by the Apex Court. 4. On 22nd August 2017 for considerably long time, the submissions of the learned Advocate General as well as the submissions of the learned counsel representing the petitioners and other parties were heard at length on the question whether by virtue of the notification dated 10th August 2017, the directions issued by this Court as regards silence zone have been rendered inoperative. As submissions were not concluded, the matters were kept yesterday at 11.00 a.m. When the matters were called out yesterday at 11.00 am, this Bench made the learned Advocate General aware of the prima facie view formed by this Court after hearing the arguments at length on 22nd August 2017. Only object of pointing out prima facie view before the submissions were to be concluded was to give an opportunity to the learned Advocate General firstly to seek instructions from the State Government and secondly to address the Court on the prima facie view expressed by this Court. There is a consistent practice followed by this Court to express prima facie view so that best is brought out of the members of the Bar. There is a consistent practice followed by this Court to express prima facie view so that best is brought out of the members of the Bar. Prima facie view expressed by this Court was that on the basis of the amendment brought about by the notification dated 10th August 2017, the directions issued by this Court as regards silence zone cannot be held to be inoperative and in any event, the State Government will have to make an application for review or modification of the final Judgment. This Court also expressed a prima facie view that since what is held in clause (xii) of paragraph 93 reproduced above was not based only on clause 3 of the Schedule which has been deleted by the amendment, in absence of any application for modification, the oral plea of the learned Advocate General cannot be considered. This Court also expressed a prima facie view that if the submissions of the learned Advocate General are correct, a part of the Judgment will have to be modified which has to be done by the same Bench which has passed the final Judgment and Order as per Chapter XXX of the Bombay High Court Rules and the corresponding provisions of the Original Side Rules. This Court has made it very clear to the learned Advocate General that this Court was willing to hear him further on his contention and the prima facie view expressed was subject to his further submissions. However, he sought time to take instructions. Thereafter, we kept back the matters till 1.00 p.m. The matters were taken at 1.10 p.m., when the learned Advocate General stated before the Court what were his instructions. He stated that the State Government was willing to make an application for review. His submission was that till the said application is filed and considered, the State Government will proceed on the basis of the statements made by Smt. Shirke that no silence zone is in existence as per the amended Noise Pollution Rules. However, he stated that in case of city of Mumbai where earlier declarations by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of silence zones have been made, the silence zones will be taken up as guide lines. Therefore, he continued further submissions till 2.00 p.m. The submissions could have been over yesterday itself and we would have decided the issue yesterday itself. However, he stated that in case of city of Mumbai where earlier declarations by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of silence zones have been made, the silence zones will be taken up as guide lines. Therefore, he continued further submissions till 2.00 p.m. The submissions could have been over yesterday itself and we would have decided the issue yesterday itself. However, on the request made by the learned Advocate General on the ground that he was required to appear before the Full Bench headed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, we thought it fit to accommodate him. Therefore, we kept the matter today for hearing the further submissions of the learned Advocate General. If we would not have expressed our prima facie view, the matter would have been over yesterday in the first session of yesterday itself. 5. Yesterday, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice passed an Administrative Order assigning the PIL St.No.24110 of 2017 wherein the challenge is to the notification dated 10th August 2017. Today, when the matters were called out, the learned Advocate General has placed on record a letter dated 24th August 2017 signed by Shri Manish M. Pabale, AGP addressed to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The letter records that it was drafted on the instructions of Shri Vijay Patil, Deputy Secretary of the Home Department, Mantralaya. In the said letter, it is stated that one of the two Judges of this Bench (A.S. Oka, J.) is harbouring a serious bias in the subject matter against the State Machinery. Therefore, a prayer is made in the said letter to club all the connected matters. The learned Advocate General stated that when the said letter was submitted, the State was not aware of the order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of assigning the PIL St.No.24110 of 2017 to this Bench. However, he states that prayer in the application is for transfer of matters on Board and all connected matters. The learned counsel for the Union of India in PIL St.No.24110 of 2017 was at pains to point out that a matter involving similar challenge is adjourned by four weeks by another Bench. 6. We are shocked to record all this. As stated earlier, we followed the tradition of expressing prima facie view to the learned counsels representing the parties only with a view to get proper assistance from them. 6. We are shocked to record all this. As stated earlier, we followed the tradition of expressing prima facie view to the learned counsels representing the parties only with a view to get proper assistance from them. After the matters were adjourned yesterday with a view to accommodate the learned Advocate General, the State has filed the letter dated 24th August 2017 making serious allegations of bias against one of us (A.S. Oka, J). We are not saying this to blame the learned Advocate General. But we are saying this for a different reason. The State should have respect for the highest Office of the learned Advocate General who is the constitutional functionary. Suffice it to say that by this conduct on the part of the State Government, they have made the position of the learned Advocate General most awkward. The Advocate General is the leader of the Bar who is the Officer of the Court first. We are sorry to record that the State Government has not bothered to even consider the effect of such a prayer made today when the matters were adjourned yesterday to accommodate the learned Advocate General. 7. The law as regards recusal is well settled and we may not restate it again. There is no question of recusing ourselves from this matter. However, as Hon'ble the Chief Justice is moved with an application for transfer, we deem it proper to defer the hearing of the matters till 3.00 p.m. In the normal course, we would have granted more time. But the learned senior counsel representing the petitioner in PIL St.No.24110 of 2017 is pressing for grant of ad-interim relief. Therefore, we direct that these matters shall be kept at 3.00 p.m. 8. Without elaborating, in short, we also record submissions made by Shri Anturkar, Shri Gorwadkar and Shri Saraf that this action of making allegations of bias and of applying for transfer is completely malafide. The learned counsel Shri Saraf also contended that this attempt is made to make the whole issue academic with a view to ensure that there is a lot of noise pollution in coming Ganpati festival. He also stated that this application is politically motivated. 9. The Registrar (Judicial-I) to ensure that when the said application/praecipe is placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, a copy of this order is produced before the Hon'ble Chief Justice.