PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has restrained the authorities from granting any permission to Ukiyo beach resort in Ashvem to play loud music or host parties after the High Court observed that the establishment was repeatedly violating noise pollution norms.
The High Court also asked the district authorities not to grant any permission to establishments along the Anjuna-Vagator belt that have been found to be repeatedly violating the noise pollution rules.
“We restrain the authorities from issuing permits to this Ukiyo Beach Resort for music events. Further, we direct the concerned PI to be alert in ensuring that no music is played at this resort until further orders. Further still, if there is any issue of flickering lights, the same should also be addressed. This means that the flickering lights should be discontinued until further orders. Further, until further orders, Ukiyo Beach Resort is restrained from playing outdoor music or using flickering lights at their resort. This order will operate until the next date, which is now 21.03.2023,” the High Court bench of Justices M S Sonak and B P Deshpande, ruled.
The High Court referred to newspaper reports which said that the club was playing loud music during night hours in breach of the noise pollution rules in the vicinity of turtle nesting beaches.
“According to us, these news reports refer to the dwindling numbers of the Olive Ridley turtles, which come during February and March for nesting. One of the news items refers to some statistics and points out how during the last 45 days, at other turtle nesting sites, there was no problem, but at the Ashvem beach, the number of the Olive Ridley turtles considerably dwindled. These turtle nesting sites are protected zones under the provisions of various laws and also the CRZ notification. These are highly vulnerable locations because there are very few places around the globe where such sites remain. Literature suggests that the Olive Ridley
turtles have been coming to these few and chosen sites for thousands of years for nesting purposes. Therefore, it would not be an exaggeration to state that these are natural heritage sites, if not natural wonders,” the High Court observed.
“All authorities are duty-bound to take all steps necessary to protect such sites. In particular, such sites should not be disturbed by blaring music or glaring lights because these turtles and, eventually, their hatchlings are incredibly vulnerable. Furthermore, these turtles and their hatchlings are susceptible to noise and light pollution,” the High Court said.
“Further, we direct the concerned Deputy Collector, PI, GCZMA and the Forest Department officials not only to visit the site and assess the situation but also to file reports before us indicating the steps taken to protect these nesting sites. This should be done immediately. The report should also indicate the impact of the permissions granted, if any, to Ukiyo Beach Resort which is stated to be near the turtle nesting site at Ashvem. This exercise of filing a report should be completed within two weeks,” the High Court said.
In reference to the parties at Vagator and Anjuna, the High Court observed that “despite breaches and even lodging of FIRs, further consents are granted, giving cause to other violations.”
“Either this is a case of ineffective implementation or a case where such establishments find it profitable to breach the noise pollution rules without being bothered by the threat of any criminal prosecution. The authorities must consider whether any permission should be granted to such establishments that are perpetually breaching the noise pollution rules and regulations. Accordingly, the authorities must consider the history of establishments that are known to breach the noise pollution rules and only thereafter, decide whether any permissions should be granted,” the High Court said.
“Further, the police authorities within whose jurisdiction such establishments fall must be alert and ensure that these breaches occur under no circumstances, particularly by these establishments. The police authorities must take a proactive role in this matter and not give the usual excuse about not receiving a complaint or finding that music has been stopped on reaching the site,” the High Court also said.
“Therefore, the moment any violation is noticed, the consent should stand automatically terminated, and no further event should be permitted to continue based on the terminated permissions. Furthermore, the Police must strictly enforce the terms and conditions, mainly because copies of such permissions are invariably marked to the concerned Superintendent of Police, SDPO and Police Inspectors. The purpose of marking such permissions to them is to ensure that the police authorities take a proactive role in determining whether there are breaches of the terms and conditions and whether music continues beyond the prescribed hours,” the High Court observed.
“Since the status report refers to the above three establishments, we direct the Deputy Collector first to consider whether any further permissions should be granted to these establishments. Secondly, the police authorities must ensure due compliance with the terms and conditions if, despite the prima facie but repeated violations, the Deputy Collector decides to grant permissions to such establishments. Finally, we note that the material on record prima facie establishes that citizens made repeated complaints about these establishments playing loud music beyond 10 pm. Record also discloses that despite such complaints, no serious action was taken by the authorities. Therefore, we are constrained to make such orders,” the High Court said.
