A division bench of justices Abhay Oka and Revati Mohite-Dere rapped the state for not following its previous orders regarding implementation of noise pollution rules and removing illegal 'pandals' (temporary structures) in public places and on roads and footpaths during festivals.
Irked by non-implementation of its earlier orders, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday asked the chief secretary to identify officers responsible for not implementing noise pollution rules so that contempt action could be taken against them.
A division bench of justices Abhay Oka and Revati Mohite-Dere rapped the state for not following its previous orders regarding implementation of noise pollution rules and removing illegal 'pandals' (temporary structures) in public places and on roads and footpaths during festivals.
The judges observed: "Two months have passed and the government has failed to implement the directives of the high court. The state has taken the HC orders very casually... all that the government has done is to address letters to the principal secretaries of urban development, revenue and environment departments, inviting their attention to the HC orders."
"Proceedings of contempt have to be initiated against the officers concerned," said the judges and asked the chief secretary to identify the officers with their names and designations.
The court asked the chief secretary to file an affidavit on these lines by July 3.
The HC was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Dr Mahesh Bedekar from Thane district, raising concern over the nuisance created by various organisers of religious festivals with regard to noise pollution and erection of pandals on streets and footpaths.
In March, the HC had observed that every citizen has a fundamental right to silence and to live in peace and comfort, which can't be disturbed by organisers of religious and other festivals.
The HC had then asked the government to frame a policy to tackle noise pollution and set up a mechanism by which citizens could lodge complaints. The authorities should take prompt action before the festivals get over, the HC had directed.
However, the court was informed last week that no such policy has been formed.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}