Bombay HC directs Pune CP to look into ex-cop alleging noise pollution at wedding venue

A division bench of Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Anil S Kilor was hearing a criminal application filed by former assistant commissioner of Pune Police, Arvind Ramchandra Patil — argued through advocate Uday Warunjikar — seeking FIR against those who burst loud firecrackers between 10 pm and 6 am.

Warunjikar submitted that on December 19, 2019, the petitioner awoke due to sudden and loud noise of bursting firecrackers late in the night near the wedding venue called Yash Lawns, which was an act of breach of provisions of EPA and Noise Pollution regulation rules.

The petitioner video-recorded the said incident and immediately contacted the police control room from his mobile phone and lodged a complaint to the concerned Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) on duty.

Thereafter, he forwarded the video recording on the WhatsApp facility meant for citizens made available by Pune Police and also approached the Bibwewadi Police station the next day and his statement was recorded.

Patil claimed that it was found through the RTI reply that the police authorities failed to take appropriate steps against lawbreakers and instead sent a closure letter to the petitioner. As per Patil, the police had told the petitioner that no useful information was revealed in the probe based on statements of four individuals, who showed ignorance to the case, and that the owner of Yash Lawns was asked to take appropriate steps for avoiding incidents of bursting firecrackers after 10 pm.

Thereafter, he approached the chairman of the divisional police complaint redressal authority, however, it has not taken any action as yet.

Patil then approached Pune CP with his grievance of non-action. Moreover, a representation of office bearers of housing society of petitioner was also given to the top cop stating that the residents were recently facing similar incidents of noise pollution and requested the CP to take appropriate action to avoid such incidents in future.

Warunjikar alleged that the concerned police officer, instead of following due procedure and registering a complaint, fabricated his own evidence to nullify contents of the petition with the intention to save the offenders, and as no proper investigation was conducted till date, he was prompted to approach the HC.

After hearing submissions, the bench noted, “It may not be out of place to state that the object of EPA and Rules itself is to protect the citizens from damage to the environment and suffering from noise pollution. Considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that the petition can be disposed of as counsel of petitioner was justified in submitting that authorities acted mechanically without considering the object of the Act.

Disposing of the plea, the bench asked the Pune CP to look into the grievance of the petitioner and give an opinion or pass an order expeditiously and not later than eight weeks from Tuesday.