JUDGMENT : 1. Captioned writ petitions are materially connected, filed by petitioners, who are residents of 'Silk Nagar', Thrissur District, against the functioning of a company viz., “Steel and Industrial Forgings Ltd., a fully owned Government company and therefore, I heard them together and propose to pass a common judgment. 2. The facts and figures available from W.P.(C) No.9289/2015 are relied upon to dispose of the writ petitions. Material facts are as follows; first respondent company is engaged in the manufacture of good quality forgings. Main production machinery of the 1st respondent comprises of closed die forging hammers of 6 ton, 10 ton etc. The company also uses hydraulic trimming press, billet shearing machines and a number of oil fired and electric furnaces for socking as part of forging process. The company also manufactures forgings of the carbon steels, alloy steels, stainless steels etc. 3. While so, the company installed a hammer of 16 ton for the purpose of forging. Consequent to the installation of 16 ton hammer and when it is used for hammering, according to the petitioners, the entire area is shaking and the neighbouring buildings are also damaged. So also the sound emanating from the manufacturing process of hammering has become unbearable and the entire people of the locality is afraid of staying in their residential buildings. It is also pointed out that, their houses are all damaged and the buildings may collapse at any time. The operation of the 16 ton hammer started from 27.12.2014 commercially. Immediately on the use of the said hammer, people of the locality submitted Ext.P1 complaint to the 3rd respondent i.e., the District Collector, Thrissur. The 3rd respondent in turn forwarded a copy of the complaint to the District Officer of Factories and Boilers, Pollution Control Board and also to the 4th respondent Panchayat. Thereupon, officers of Factories and Boilers inspected the neighbouring buildings and detected the cracks developed on the buildings. Petitioners have produced photographs of the various houses and marked as Exts.P2 to P5 respectively. That apart it is contended that, the dust and fumes emanated from the company and noise resulted from hammering are unbearable even before the introduction of the 16 ton hammer. Petitioners and others have submitted Ext.P6 mass complaint before the President of the Panchayat on 5.2.2015, however, the same did not evoke any response. That apart it is contended that, the dust and fumes emanated from the company and noise resulted from hammering are unbearable even before the introduction of the 16 ton hammer. Petitioners and others have submitted Ext.P6 mass complaint before the President of the Panchayat on 5.2.2015, however, the same did not evoke any response. Thereupon, Ext.P7 mass petition was submitted before the Chief Minister of Kerala enumerating the difficulties and inconveniences faced by the petitioners and others. Ext.P8 representation is also submitted before the Industries Minister of the State Government dated 9.2.2015. It is also pointed out that, the 16 ton hammer is being used throughout the day and night, which is causing sleepless night to the people and interferes with the quality of life entitled to be enjoyed by the citizens. According to the petitioners, even though the Pollution Control Board authorities informed the 1st respondent to make necessary arrangements for preventing/controlling sound and dust, no action is taken by the 1st respondent. It is also the case of the petitioners that, Fire and Rescue authorities have also informed that, no precautionary measures are provided before using the 16 ton hammer. 4. While so, the 4th respondent Panchayat Committee in its meeting held on 26.12.2015 unanimously decided to prevent the user of 16 ton hammer without securing permit or licence from the Panchayat, evident from Ext.P9. On the basis of Ext.P9 order, Ext.P10 communication is issued to the 2nd respondent to stop the functioning of 16 ton hammer till such time a separate permit is secured for using the same. These are the basic background facts projected by the petitioners. Similar contentions are raised in the other writ petition also. 5. Respondents 1 & 2 have filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioners. Among other contentions, it is stated that, 1st respondent company is situated in an extent of 24 Acres of property at Athani in Thrissur District, and there were no residential houses in the surrounding area when the company started its operation in the year, 1983. The residential houses were situated away from the company at a minimum distance of 200 meters. That apart it is contended that, petitioners are residing above 100 meters away from the premises of the 1st respondent company. The residential houses were situated away from the company at a minimum distance of 200 meters. That apart it is contended that, petitioners are residing above 100 meters away from the premises of the 1st respondent company. Petitioners have constructed their residential houses fully knowing well that 1st respondent company is carrying on its activities by using the hammers. After installing the 16 ton hammer, company appointed experts from Government Engineering College, Thrissur and Centre for Earth Science Studies for scientific study regarding allegations raised by the petitioners apprehending vibration and developing cracks to the building. The Government Engineering College, Thrissur has submitted a report produced as Ext.R1(b). In the said report, it is stated that, the cracks observed in various walls of the building cannot be entirely attributed to vibration due to hammer blows and the acceleration levels were observed to be significant to the damage point of view, which shows that, the use of 16 ton hammer is not harmful to the neighbouring building. It is further stated in the said report that, house of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9289/2015 is not having rigidity and stability compared to other houses since they have used pre-fabricated ferro cement structures on their top floor, where maximum vibration is analysed in the report. Therefore, the respondent company cannot be fastened with any liability in this regard. 6. So much so, the Government of Kerala has already issued a notification bearing No. G.O. (Rt.)1125/04/ID dated 8.11.2004 stipulating that, in the case of industrial park at Chelakkara and Athani, licence and clearance are necessary only from Single Window Clearance Board, therefore, no separate licence is necessary from the Grama Panchayat in the light of the Government Order. In order to avoid complaints of vibration, 1st respondent company have made a trench to a depth of 8 meters to arrest any vibration to the buildings of the local residents of the area and vibration study was conducted after the trench was made. It is also the case of the company that, the company is ready to implement the suggestions given on the basis of the study conducted by various authorities. After starting of the 1st respondent company, employees of the company formed a Housing Society and purchased nearby plots and constructed residential houses. It is also the case of the company that, the company is ready to implement the suggestions given on the basis of the study conducted by various authorities. After starting of the 1st respondent company, employees of the company formed a Housing Society and purchased nearby plots and constructed residential houses. All the houses were constructed during the year 1990 and the permission for installation of 16 ton hammer was obtained from various statutory authorities like Pollution Control Board, Local Grama Panchayat etc. on submission of technical drawings for installation of 16 ton hammer. The consent given by the Pollution Control Board to operate the 16 ton hammer is dated 30.12.2013 initially valid upto 30.6.2016, which is being extended periodically. Ext.R1(c) is the copy of the consent dated 20.3.2015 given by the residents of the locality. That apart it is submitted that, Ext.P10 stop memo is issued to the respondent company without affording an opportunity of hearing and therefore, it violates the principles of natural justice. 7. Anyhow, Ext.R1(d) objection was filed to the stop memo issued, however, at the time of filing of the counter, no orders were passed. But subsequently orders were passed withdrawing the prohibition created as per Ext.P10 stop memo. It is also stated that, more than 300 employees are working in the company directly, and about 700 people are getting employment indirectly for their livelihood. The company is supplying forgings to Railways, Defence, ISRO, Brahmos Aerospace applications etc. along with other public sector undertakings and for the purpose of production of forgings, use of 16 ton hammer is absolutely inevitable and if the company is not allowed to use 16 ton hammer, it will adversely affect the entire production and supply of forgings, which may lead to adverse civil consequences. That apart it is contended that, if the petitioners have suffered any damage, petitioners will have to stake their claims before the competent civil court. 8. Eleventh additional respondent, the Secretary to Government has submitted a report, wherein, it is reported that, pursuant to the direction issued by this court on 7.10.2015, a fact finding report has been collected from the company. On verification of the same, it is seen that, the company has implemented various measures like the following: (1) The foundation design of 16 ton hammer had been prepared by the original equipment supplier, M/s. NKMS. On verification of the same, it is seen that, the company has implemented various measures like the following: (1) The foundation design of 16 ton hammer had been prepared by the original equipment supplier, M/s. NKMS. The civil foundation drawing for erection of 16 ton hammer was submitted to the Government Engineering College, Thrissur in 2013 and the same was vetted by them as per Indian Standards-IS 2974(Part-II), 1980. The specification and necessary measures provided in Indian Standards as specified above has been complied while erecting the hammer. (2) In order to abate the vibration, a trench having 7.5 metres in depth was dug 25 meters away from the machine. Trenches were constructed and filled with baby metal mixture so as to reduce the vibration. In order to avoid theintensity of vibration and to arrest the spreading of vibration, the hard rocks lying near the trenches were broken. (3) the study conducted by the Cochin University of Science and Technology with the help of vibration analysing instrument has revealed that, the vibration level are below Indian Standards IS- 4866:2010, evident from Ext.R11(a). 9. Therefore, on an over all analysis and verification of the report of the expert agencies, additional 5th respondent found that, Annexure 1 has been implemented by the 1st respondent company. Apart from that, other measures like digging of trenches to abate the vibration has been undertaken by the company. To the report, petitioners have filed an objection and consequent to the same, an additional report is submitted by the 11th respondent on realising that, an enquiry should have been conducted to ascertain the real facts and circumstances. Thereupon, the houses of the petitioners were inspected on 23.4.2016, and with the assistance of Head of the Mechanical Engineering Division, and also the Professor, Division of Safety and Fire Engineering, Cochin University of Science and Technology(CUSAT) a vibration analysis has been made and it has been ascertained that, all the measured values are within the expected range prescribed by IS/ISO 4866 of 2010, which is produced as Ext.R11(b). Therefore, according to the additional 11th respondent, it is clear that, applicable measures pointed out in Ext.R1(b) have been implemented. 10. Similar objections are filed by the company and the Chairman in the other writ petition also. The Trade Unions functioning in the company got themselves impleaded as additional R6 to R9. Therefore, according to the additional 11th respondent, it is clear that, applicable measures pointed out in Ext.R1(b) have been implemented. 10. Similar objections are filed by the company and the Chairman in the other writ petition also. The Trade Unions functioning in the company got themselves impleaded as additional R6 to R9. Petitioners have also filed a reply affidavit to the objection filed by the company reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition. Among other contentions it is stated that, use of ferro cement panels for room partitioning walls in the first floor have only reduced 19% of the total weight of the structure. Usage of ferro cement panels reduced the cracks on the walls of the ground floor. But even if the blame is on ferro cement panel, it cannot explain as to why bulging and cracking occurs on the floors of the ground floor. Therefore, according to the petitioners, reasoning shown in the reports are incorrect. It is also pointed out that, report does not give any information regarding the depth of the trench to be taken and even after excavation of 8 mtr. deep trench, no reduction in vibration is felt. At the base of the trench is a rock mass and the depth and area covered by rock mass is not known. Therefore, rock transfer vibration is easy and thus the purpose of trench has become futile. It is also pointed out that, most of the signatories in Ext.R1(c) are the employees of the company. However, the mass petitions were submitted before the various authorities by the people of the locality after understanding the dangers caused due to the use of 16 ton hammer. That apart, it is submitted that, mass protest was conducted by the public consequent to the difficulties faced by them. Exts.P11 to P14 documents are also produced along with the reply affidavit. 11. I have heard learned senior counsel for petitioner, Dr. K.P. Satheesan, learned Additional Advocate General, Sri.Renjith Thampan, Senior Advocate, K. Gopalakrishnan Kurup and Sri.Thajudheen for the Trade Unions and Advocate Saji Varghese for the company and Chairman, and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 12. Exts.P11 to P14 documents are also produced along with the reply affidavit. 11. I have heard learned senior counsel for petitioner, Dr. K.P. Satheesan, learned Additional Advocate General, Sri.Renjith Thampan, Senior Advocate, K. Gopalakrishnan Kurup and Sri.Thajudheen for the Trade Unions and Advocate Saji Varghese for the company and Chairman, and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 12. The subject issue raised in these writ petitions lies in a very narrow compass, but at the same time, concerning life and liberty of the petitioners, consequent to the use of a 16 ton hammer by the company allegedly causing, noise pollution as well as other adverse circumstances interfering with the smooth and quality life of the petitioners and other people residing in the locality. Ext.R1(b) report is submitted by the Government Engineering College, Thrissur. On a reading of Ext.R1(b) it is evident that, the residential houses were visited by the experts and they felt floor as well as wall vibrations in some houses and notable among them was the house owned by one Ashraf, apparently husband of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.9289/2015, where the vibration levels were higher than compared to others. Accordingly, it is decided to make vibration in horizontal and vertical directions and conduct measurements at various locations including walls as well as floors. Vibration measurement instrumentations from the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Government Engineering College, Thrissur was utilised for the purpose. The instrumentation consisted of piezoelectric based acceleration pick up and a portable data acquisition cum signal conditioning and processing device. Acceleration power spectral densities were also computed to identify the dominant frequencies contained in the vibrations. After vibration test as per IS 13276 (Part-I):2000, the threshold perception level for human discomfort is set as 0.015m/s2 at most locations. The building response frequencies are seen to be in 2 to 12 Hz range, which corresponds to a time period of 0.08 to 0.5 Hz which happens to the range for single storied masonry structures. Though cracks were observed in walls of the buildings, further detailed investigations are required to ascertain the significance of these vibrations on such cracks. On a detailed examination of Mr. Though cracks were observed in walls of the buildings, further detailed investigations are required to ascertain the significance of these vibrations on such cracks. On a detailed examination of Mr. Ashraf's house, it is evident, ferro cement panels were used for the construction of partition walls of the first floor of the building, which might have resulted in reduction of structural mass and caused more vulnerable to ground excitation resulting from hammer blows. The influence of excavation though not explicit, still can be made out from the comparison of time histories of accelerations of measurements made on 13.3.2015. It can also be seen that, peak acceleration levels hardly exceeds 0.015m/s2 with a slight reduction in acceleration amplitudes being clearly visible. All the cracks observed in various walls of the building cannot be entirely attributed to vibration due to the hammer blows and the acceleration levels were observed to be less significant to damaging point of view. A comparative table is also provided analysing the situation with earthquake, which are as follows: Earthquake intensity Acceleration m/s2 Velocity cm/sec Perceived shaking Potential Damage 1 <0.017 <0.010 Not left None 2 to 3 0.017 to 0.14 0.12 to 0.10 Weak None 4 0.14 to 0.39 1.10 to 3.40 Light None 5 0.39 to 0.92 3.40 to 8.10 Moderate Very Light 6 0.92 to 1.80 8.10 to 16 Strong Light 13. That apart it is reported that, a qualitative assessment on the effect of these vibrations on the structural damage is beyond the scope of this investigations, though from this preliminary study, it seems that, the observed accelerations levels corresponding to individual blows may affect the existing cracks on the structure. At the same time though the peak magnitudes are small under the scenario of repeated excitation within short interval of time which is observed in this case, the possibility of development of already existing cracks in the structure resulting from the combined effect of structure vibrations along with the soil consolidation effects resulting from vibrations cannot be ruled out. Therefore, extensive experimental and numerical simulation studies are necessary to make a proper quantitative assessment on the same which is outside the scope of facilities available with GEC, Thrissur. Accordingly, it was recommended to have a consultation with more professional consulting firms such as Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai in this regard,. Therefore, extensive experimental and numerical simulation studies are necessary to make a proper quantitative assessment on the same which is outside the scope of facilities available with GEC, Thrissur. Accordingly, it was recommended to have a consultation with more professional consulting firms such as Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai in this regard,. It is also suggested that, the vibration level may be checked periodically at various points to see whether the vibration levels exceeds the perception limits. It is also recommended that, water level in the trench excavated may be maintained so that the wetness of soil below the bottom level of the trench can be achieved which can reduce the effect of propagation of vibration. 14. The report produced by the additional 11th respondent also reveals that, vibration data was captured from 10 locations in the house of Ashraf and the data has been analysed using quick DAQ vibration software. The maximum number of blows for the 16 ton hammer is about 40 50 strokes per minute, which is classified under the stray or impact type hammers and they are subjected to blows of the order of 150 strokes per minute. Referring to IS 4866 of 2010 (1) Table No.A1 shows the range of structural response for various sources, impact of hammers can be categorised as machinery outside, for which, the frequency range is 0 to 100 Hz, the Amplitude ranges from 0.01 to 1mm, the particle velocity ranges from 0.2 to 100mm/sec and the acceleration ranges from 20 to 1000mm/sec2. Moreover, the time characteristic may be continuous or transient in nature. The measured values are close to the lower limit of the indicative range for ground vibration from machinery. Hence it is not causing any concern to the inhabitants nearby. Therefore, the vibration levels expressed in terms of acceleration, velocity and displacement were found to be within the acceptable limits prescribed by the IS Code 4866 of 2010. However, following recommendations are made: (1) In the transmitting soil the vibration amplitudes can be partially attenuated by artificial barriers such as piles, open trenches, bentonite trenches, rigid walls. (2) For stiff walls greater reductions are achieved with increasing product of wall thickness and depth. (3) The trench must be filled with baby metal or sand to necessitate the damping of vibrations, in the direction of residential area. 15. (2) For stiff walls greater reductions are achieved with increasing product of wall thickness and depth. (3) The trench must be filled with baby metal or sand to necessitate the damping of vibrations, in the direction of residential area. 15. The said report is drawn relying upon various books and journals which are also recited to in the report. These are the materials available before this court to consider the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. An interim order was passed by this court in W.P.(C) No.9289/2015 on 23.6.2015 restraining the company from operating the unit between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Later the said interim order was modified as per an order dated 27.7.2015 on the basis of a report submitted by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, limiting the prohibition from 11p.m. to 7 a.m. The company is functioning in accordance with the modified interim order. 16. The fundamental contention advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioners is based on Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted, petitioners are entitled as of right to lead a normal and healthy life enjoying the fruits of nature, and without the fear of collapse of the building consequent to the use of 16 ton hammer. It is also pointed out that, there is no prohibition or restriction created for constructing any type of building around the factory premises, and therefore, there is no meaning in contending that, petitioners have constructed the buildings after the commissioning of the factory. That apart is submitted, in order to avoid vibration there are enough and more technology available in the market, and such advanced technology is not employed by the company in order to avoid additional expenditure. 17. However, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that, the company has got large number of orders and unless and until permission is granted to function throughout the company will not be in a position to meet the orders placed by various companies including Railways, Defence as well as ISRO. It is also pointed out that, the report submitted by the statutory authorities will make it clear that, due to the usage of 16 ton hammer no manner of inconveniences or disturbances are occurred to the residents of the locality. It is also pointed out that, the report submitted by the statutory authorities will make it clear that, due to the usage of 16 ton hammer no manner of inconveniences or disturbances are occurred to the residents of the locality. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Trade Union also submitted that, the residents near to the premises of the company are employees of the company and are not facing any difficulties while 16 ton hammer is being used by the company. It is also submitted that, the cracks developed in the building of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9289/2015 is only due to the use of peculiar material for the construction of the house and no manner of sound pollution than the permitted levels is emanated from the use of the said hammer. It is also pointed out that, the company is functioning without any hindrance except the time period restricted by this court and the petitioners do not have a case that, they are facing any difficulties during the day time when the company is functioning. It is also clear from the report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this court, to analyse the situation that excessive vibrations are not occurred during day time or sound is emanated so as to disturb the normal life of the people residing in the locality except the house of Ashraf, husband of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.9289/2015. However, fact remains, there is no restriction for the construction of residential or other buildings around the factory premises. Therefore, petitioners and others are entitled to reside, or carry on any activity in the buildings belonging to them as of right. From the various reports discussed above, it is evident that, though in mild form vibrations are occurred. The inspection reports further reveal that vibrations are not in a dangerous level. 18. Taking into account the reports submitted by the experts and the facts and figures pointed out by the company, I am of the considered opinion that, the company can be permitted to operate throughout for a period of three months. The inspection reports further reveal that vibrations are not in a dangerous level. 18. Taking into account the reports submitted by the experts and the facts and figures pointed out by the company, I am of the considered opinion that, the company can be permitted to operate throughout for a period of three months. In order to analyse the situation on the basis of the two reports that are referred to in the writ petitions, the Pollution Control Board will be at liberty to carry out necessary inspection during the said six months period with notice or otherwise and identify whether difficulties are faced by the people residing in the locality, observe vibrations and the sound emanated from the functioning of 16 ton hammer. If there is excessive vibration and sound pollution consequent to the use of the said hammer, Pollution Control Board will be at liberty to bring the said aspect to the notice of the company authorities, who shall take immediate steps to regulate the vibrations to the limits specified by the experts in the reports. The company shall also take adequate steps to ensure employment of a fool proof technology for eliminating vibrations so as not to interfere with the normal and peaceful life of the petitioners, and other residents of the locality. I am also informed by the learned Additional Advocate General that, this is a public sector undertaking running on profit. Therefore, the company has the necessary financial and economic flexibility to employ sophisticated technology available in the Indian market or abroad to regulate and control the vibrations and sound emanating from the hammer to the maximum extent possible. The petitioners will also be at liberty to raise any complaint, if they are aggrieved consequent to any excessive vibration and sound emanated from the use of the hammer in question to the appropriate statutory authorities. 19. I think it is only proper to convey a word of caution to the State Government and the company, before I part with the judgment. The concept of right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a very valuable right entitled to be enjoyed by all citizens in its fullest sense and extent, and the State has the duty, obligation and responsibility to protect the said right at any cost. The concept of right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a very valuable right entitled to be enjoyed by all citizens in its fullest sense and extent, and the State has the duty, obligation and responsibility to protect the said right at any cost. It is something above the mere existence and utmost regard shall be had to uphold the said right. A normal, peaceful and quite atmosphere are also facets of the said right. Like any other enjoyment within the limits of the said right, citizens are also entitled as of right to have a normal sleep and rest, without any disturbance from others. These are all aspects to be taken care of by the State and its instrumentalities completely and absolutely. Even while providing employment, or making profit out of any business ,such things should not stand in the way of translating the true spirit and intention of 'life and liberty' envisioned by the framers of the constitution. So also a giant cannot be permitted to overawe the rights of common man protected under Part III of the Constitution of India. Which thus means the State has the duty and obligation to strike a balance in such situations ensuring protection of the rights of the citizens. So also the State has the duty to discharge its obligation as custodian of the citizens and such duties are to be carried out without any negligence and laches and with utmost responsibility and care. Be it noted, any disturbance to such basic elements guaranteed under the Constitution is unpardonable. So much so, the developmental activities should not turn out as a causality meddling with the life and liberty of the citizens. Such care and protection by the State makes the life of a citizen more colourful and meaningful. Therefore, every endeavour shall be made to eliminate any manner of discomfort to the residents of the locality in question and I sincerely hope the State and the company will rise to the occasion. 20. Such care and protection by the State makes the life of a citizen more colourful and meaningful. Therefore, every endeavour shall be made to eliminate any manner of discomfort to the residents of the locality in question and I sincerely hope the State and the company will rise to the occasion. 20. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of allowing the company to function throughout subject to the observations and directions made above, and in accordance with the permitted frequencies of vibrations prescribed in the reports submitted by the experts, and also on condition that, within the six months period specified above, the company shall install necessary equipments so as to eliminate the vibration and sound pollution to the maximum extent possible, if not, nil. I make it clear that, the disposal of these writ petitions will not stand in the way of petitioners approaching this court at a later point of time, if any inconveniences are caused exceeding standard limits due to the operation of 16 ton hammer, and if the respondent are not taking into account steps as directed above.