Noise pollution: Local authorities empowered to take direct action
New Delhi: Delhi govt has notified significant amendments to empower local authorities and officers to take direct action under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
It aims to decentralise the enforcement mechanism.Environment minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa said, "Delhi deserves peace and order—not just on paper but on the ground. With this empowerment of local authorities, we are taking action where it matters—right at the source."Earlier, the list of designated officers included all deputy commissioners, the office of the divisional commissioner, all sub-divisional magistrates, assistant commissioners of police control room, all sub-divisional police officers, including railways and airports, and the chairman and member secretary of DPCC, as well as assistant commissioners of police (traffic).A wide range of officers are now authorised to act against noise pollution violations. Assistant commissioners from municipal corporations and local bodies have also been added. Besides, all deputy commissioners (revenue), all sub-divisional magistrates (revenue), assistant commissioners of police control room, all sub-divisional police officers, scientists and engineers from DPCC, and assistant commissioners of police (traffic) are now empowered to inspect, issue notices, prosecute violators, and take preventive measures directly under the law. tnn
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Gazette
3 hours ago
- India Gazette
Delhi HC asks Govt to reconsider remission cancellation, directs opportunity for convict to be heard
New Delhi [India], June 7 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to reconsider the cancellation of the remission granted to a life convict, stressing the need to follow principles of natural justice. The remission was revoked following the convict's arrest in an attempted murder case. 'The liberty of a person cannot be curtailed through administrative fiat without affording procedural safeguards. Since the cancellation of remission results in the convict's re-committal to custody, the consequence is serious enough to require strict adherence to natural justice,' the High Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar case. Justice Sanjeev Narula, while directing reconsideration, asked the authorities to issue a show cause notice to the Convict and give him an opportunity before passing an order. Petitioner Sonu Sonkar has approached the High Court challenging the cancellation on the grounds that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order cancelling his remission was passed. The High Court noted that the Supreme Court has categorically held that any decision to revoke remission must comply with due process and must be preceded by the issuance of a show cause notice, disclosing the grounds for cancellation and granting the convict an opportunity to respond and be heard. The record does not reflect that such an opportunity was extended to the petitioner before the cancellation of remission,' the High Court said in the order passed on May 20. 'While the order was passed in accordance with the Delhi Prison (DP) Rules, 2018, which at the relevant time did not mandate a prior show-cause notice to be issued, the binding precedent of the Supreme Court now requires that such safeguard be read into the process,' Justice Narula said. The High Court ordered, 'Accordingly, and in the interest of fairness, the Court deems it appropriate to direct reconsideration of the cancellation through a procedurally sound and time-bound exercise.' The High Court directed the Delhi government shall within a period of 10 days from today issue a show cause notice detailing the specific grounds on which cancellation of remission is proposed. The Petitioner shall submit a written response within seven days and shall also be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, the bench said. The competent authority shall thereafter pass a reasoned order, after due consideration of the petitioner's response, within a period of four (4) weeks from today, Justice Narula ordered. Petitioner Sonu Sonkar moved a petition through advocate Arpit Batra challenging the order of September 24, 2022, passed by the Dy. Secretary (Home), GNCTD, affirmed by the Lt. Governor, Delhi. The sentence remission was revoked, directing him to serve the remainder of his original sentence. Sonkar was convicted and sentenced to a life sentence in a murder case from 2004. After completing fifteen years of incarceration, he applied for premature release on the grounds of sustained good conduct while in custody. The Sentence Review Board (SRB), after considering his case, recommended his premature release, which was duly accepted by the competent authority. On September 9, 2019, the Petitioner was released from custody upon furnishing a personal bond. However, while on remission, in 2021, he was named in an FIR of Police Station Subzi Mandi under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC as well as Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act 1959. He was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on November 30, 2021, and lodged in Central Jail, Tihar. The authorities construed the initiation of fresh criminal proceedings against the petitioner as a breach of the undertakings embodied in the personal bond executed at the time of his premature release. Advocate Arpit Batra, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the mere pendency of a fresh FIR, particularly one in which the allegations are yet to be tested through trial, cannot constitute a sufficient basis to revoke a remission. It was also submitted that the petitioner was neither issued a show cause notice nor given an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the order was passed. It is a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. (ANI)
New Indian Express
5 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Madras High Court initiates contempt proceedings against Tamil Nadu Chief Secretaries
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has initiated suo motu contempt of court proceedings against officers who have served as the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu from September 19, 2023 until now for failing to take action as per the court's orders issued on that date in a batch of petitions filed regarding issues in providing appointments based on compassionate grounds to the dependents of government staff who died in harness. The directions issued to the Chief Secretary in the September 19, 2023 included a direction to set up a committee to look into the issues in the appointments on compassionate grounds and recommend necessary amendments to the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2023, to fix a time frame. Observing that a perusal of records by the court established that no such action had been taken, Justice Battu Devanand on Friday said that the court was of the 'prima facie opinion' that the Chief Secretary had failed to comply with the order. He directed the Registrar (Judicial) to get the particulars of the officers concerned and register a contempt case against them under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution. The judge further directed the Registrar to issue notices to them to enable them to submit their response by June 20. It can be noted that incumbent Chief Secretary N. Muruganandam and his predecessor Shiv Das Meena have served in this post in the period mentioned by the court. The contempt of court proceedings has been initiated for failing to obey the orders, particularly in connection with a 2020 writ petition filed by a Nithya of Coimbatore, whose father died while working in the Transport department, for getting an appointment in the same department on compassionate grounds, and a batch of similar petitions. Expressing 'deep anguish' and 'displeasure' towards the attitude of the Chief Secretary for 'disrespecting the court's orders and failing to execute them in 'true letter and spirit,' Justice Battu Devanand said the present issue is a 'classic example' of the 'lethargic attitude' of several bureaucrats. He said that chief secretaries have no concern towards the common people and poor litigants. Such litigants are not able to enjoy the fruits of justice even after the passing of orders by the Madras High Court. He said the court intends to initiate the suo motu contempt proceedings to send a clear message to the bureaucrats, who are acting 'brazenly' and not implementing the court's orders.
Hindustan Times
16 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Haryana human rights panel seeks report on polluting factory
Haryana Human Rights commission(HHRC) has sought report from Rewari deputy commissioner, municipal commissioner, municipal council and regional officer of the Haryana state pollution board, Rewari, on a complaint filed by residents of Bheem Basti seeking intervention against the continued operation of a private industrial unit, which is functioning illegally within a densely populated residential area. The right panel has sought a report before August 19. The complainants alleged that the factory named Sai Ram pipe Udyog, is operating in violation of environmental laws, emitting hazardous noise and air pollution, causing severe vibrations from heavy machinery and operating during night hours, thereby endangering the health and safety of residents and violating their fundamental and human rights. Right panel chairperson Lalit Batra observed that the conduct of the factory and the inaction of statutory bodies such as the Haryana State Pollution Control Board amount to a blatant violation of multiple provisions of environmental and municipal laws, including but not limited to Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Factories Act, 1948, and Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. 'These Noise Rules set maximum noise limits of 55 dB during the day and 45 dB at night for residential zones. The district authorities displayed apathy towards the residents' repeated pleas,' Batra said in the order.
