AUGUSTO RODRIGUES
PORVORIM: The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court issued directions to petitioner Desmond Alvares to enlist names of five units who are habitual violators of noise pollution norms so that they could be directed to use the live noise monitoring system as a case study, when hearing Contempt Petition 12/2023 in PILWP7/2021.
“Forward the names of five units to the Amicus Curiae and the same should be disclosed during the next hearing tomorrow (August 30,2024) first half,” directed Justice Valmiki Menezes.
While the five names have been submitted to the Amicus Curiae, O Heraldo shall disclose the names of the five clubs only after they are presented to the Court tomorrow
However, for the people of Anjuna and Vagator, the suffering victims who are marching to the Anjuna Police station almost daily lighting candles, answers to more pressing questions are still not forthcoming - a clarity on deadline regarding installing monitoring devices in clubs playing shattering music and a strategy for police action on complaints. There is a definite silence on these.
The hearing on noise pollution began with Advocate General Devidas Pangam presenting a note, which suggested a methodology through which noise pollution could be controlled in Anjuna.
Though appreciated by Justice M S Karnik and Valmiki Menezes, it was not found all encompassing by the two.
“How do you stop music at 10 pm?” asked Justice Menezes after going through the note.
The note presented to the judges suggests how violations by units granted permission to play music can be triggered by Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) to the Anjuna Police and the backup by higher authorities if no action has been taken. (See Box)
However, the Bench had several counter questions. “You have to tell us what has happened to the complaints registered in the last three months,” directed Justice Menezes as he leafed through the note.
“The issue at hand is to see how people are not denied their right to sleep,” added Justice Menezes.
“Please furnish a copy of the register of all complaints and the follow-up action,” summed up Justice Menezes. “If not three months, at least of the last two months. People will simply not make complaints,” added Justice Menezes
Justice Karnik, added, “The note circulated speaks of action next day. What is worrying is that music is still playing after 10 pm. If the server is with you (GSPCB), who is going to inform the police the next day? Someone has to be there through the night to immediately act upon noise violators, otherwise it does not serve the purpose. The whole exercise is useless.”
“Citizens can privately register their complaint by calling 112. All calls to this number are recorded, plus a separate register is maintained at the police station,” remarked Advocate General Pangam, when asked by the Justices about the right of citizens getting disturbed by loud music.
“ It will be advantageous if the phone numbers of all three policemen assigned are widely circulated amongst the public instead of just one. The numbers of all three should be maintained in public domain,” suggested Justice Menezes.
“Since they are obviously roaming around after 10 pm their phone numbers should be published so that the response is immediate,” observed Justice Menezes.
“Out of the thirty two that have been asked to install live noise monitoring systems, none have replied,” suggested Manish Salkar , advocate for GSPCB.
“Since your admission implies part failure, we suggest that the Petitioner (Desmond Alvares) after speaking with locals directly affected should identify five units constantly violating sound pollution norms and suggest their names to the Amicus Curiae. We could take this as a test case and add more names, depending on how this works,” suggested Justice Menezes.
“We can keep up the five places to be monitored from the list of thirty-two mandated to install live monitoring systems,” suggested GSPCB advocate Salkar to which Justice Menezes remarked: “ The thirty-two mentioned by you may not be the noisiest.”
“Once the names are suggested, they should be asked (by GSPCB) to be part of the case immediately or close them down,” said Justice Menezes.
“Will make owners of these party spots part of this case and they should not be saying that they are not running the places,” reasoned Justice Karnik.
“We are going to inspect the parameters on which licences should be issued to such places,” said GSPCB advocate Salkar, to which Justice Menezes shot back, “You should have done this before.”
“We are contemplating a law that can regulate noise pollution,” admitted Advocate General Pangam. “Nobody has a problem if sound does not come out,” observed Justice Karnik.
At one stage during the hearing Advocate General Pangam tried to bring it to the notice of the Justices that if the sound system in court is put off, his own voice would break the decibel reading on the mobile noise monitoring system presented in the High Court by petitioner Alvares.
“We have to follow the law. We are here to protect the law and if the law states a particular decibel level has to be maintained, it must,” observed Justice Karnik.