Alleging contumacious act on the part of the respondent in giving effect to Annexure A order dated 24.1.2014 in I.A 1080 of 2014 filed in W.P.(C). No. 7798 of 2012, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this contempt matter.
2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 17.9.2014 the following order was passed:
“Pursuant to the order dated 14.08.2014 passed by this Court, the respondent/condemner is personally present before this Court.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent/ contemnor in this case as well as in C.O.C. No.534 of 2013.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the direction given by this Court has not been complied with and the matter is liable to be proceeded further.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that, by virtue of a communication gap, the scope of the order could not be properly communicated and that steps are being taken to file necessary petition supported by an affidavit to dispense with the personal presence of the respondent.
In the said circumstances, the matter will stand adjourned to be listed for further consideration on 25.09.2014. Presence of the respondent/contemnor will stand dispensed with on that day and further course shall be subjected to the orders to be passed on the next date of posting.”
3. Subsequently, taking note of the submission made across the Bar from both the sides, another order came to be passed by this Court on 21.10.2014 in I.A. 318 of 2014 in the following terms:
“I.A.
Petition to dispense with the personal presence of the petitioner.
Heard. Allowed.
COC The respondent has filed an affidavit dated 22.08.2014 pointing out that an inspection was conducted on 28.02.2014 at 11pm after serving notice to the petitioner and the concerned press. Noise level as to the working of the new printing machine was taken and it is stated that the old printing machine will usually operate once in a week (ie. on Monday) and that the new printing machine will not work on that day.
2. Annexure A order passed by this Court directs that 1st respondent to measure the noise level at the time of functioning of the press, during the time from 11 pm to 4pm and to file a report.
3. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that, in view of the dispute raised from the part of the petitioner, the respondent is ready to conduct a fresh inspection and file a report as to the noise level, with reference to the working of the old machine and also the new machine.
Post after three weeks.”
4. Pursuant to this, a detailed report has been submitted by the respondent, the relevant portions of which are in the following terms:
“Though the Board demanded the Desabhimani Press authorities to operate both the new and old machines simultaneously, they reported that they are not operating the machines simultaneously and the machines are installed in such a way that they can operate the machines only alternate condition. The letter dated 07.11.2014 submitted by the Desabhimani Press regarding the working of machine is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(a).
The sound level monitoring data indicate that there is noise pollution generated due to the operation of printing press of M/s. EMS Memorial Printing & Publishing Co.(P) Ltd. The main reasons are the proximity of the press with the petitioner's residence and inadequacy of the sound pollution control measures provided at the press.
Since the general ambient sound level during night time will be low and the press is operated only during night time the sound pollution caused by the operation of the printing press is a nuisance to the petitioner who is the nearest resident. When compared with the ambient air quality standards, the noise levels are found to be exceeded of the standards prescribed for both the residential and commercial area with respect to night time. The existing sound pollution control measure is that the printing press is operated in an enclosed room. The enclosure provided to the printing press itself is not sufficient to control the noise generated from the machine operation. Hence M/s. EMS Memorial Printing & Publishing Co.(P) Ltd shall take additional measures for reducing the sound level further by adopting scientific measures.”
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the respondent has not conducted the measurement when both the machines, old as well as the new one are simultaneously operated. Why the said exercise could not be done has been explained by the respondent in the affidavit, also producing a copy of the letter issued by the concerned printing press to the effect that, both the machines cannot be simultaneously operated by virtue of the nature/type of installation effected therein. This of course is a matter which could be rebutted by the petitioner by way of appropriate proceedings; which exercise cannot be done in this contempt matter.
After hearing both the sides, the contempt matter is closed without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue other appropriate steps, if aggrieved in any manner.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-