- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27930 WP No. 18789 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 18789 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: GRS ENGINEERING WORKS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI GOVIND RAJ, S/O CHINNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.6, P.MOTTUPATTI, KRISHNAPURAM POST, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT PIN 635 202. …PETITIONER (BY SRI G.S.PATEEL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI DEIVENDRA KUMAR H/O MANJU V., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO. 4, GARDENIA LAYOUT, COSMOS MAY FLOWER, HENNAGARA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. PIN 560 099. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27930 WP No. 18789 of 2025 2. SMT.MANJU V., W/O DEIVINDAR KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO. 4, GARDENIA LAYOUT, COSMOS MAY FLOWER, HENNAGARA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. PIN 560 099. 3. SRI SRINIVASA N., S/O LATE C.NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO. 4, GARDENIA LAYOUT, COSMOS MAY FLOWER, HENNAGARA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT PIN – 560 099. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H. VINOD KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN OS NO.616/2024 ON THE FILE OF III ADDTIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT ANEKAL AND IN M.A.NO.18/2025 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT ANEKAL; QUASH THE ORDER OF DT.1.3.2025 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT ANEKAL IN O.S.NO.616/2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ORDER DT.2.6.2025 PASSED - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27930 WP No. 18789 of 2025 BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT ANEKAL IN M.A.NO.18/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-N, CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING IA.NO.1 AND ALLOWING M.A.NO. 18/2025. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner – defendant No.1 - a proprietorship firm is before this Court calling in question an order dated 02.06.2025, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, in M.A.No.18/2025, whereby, confirms the order dated 01.03.2025, passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, in O.S.No.616/2024, which grants temporary injunction, restraining the operations of the petitioner’s unit. 2. Heard Sri G.S.Pateel, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri H. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs, who are the neighbours of the defendant No.1 – firm institute a suit in O.S.No.616/2024 seeking injunction against the petitioner - - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27930 WP No. 18789 of 2025 firm, restraining its operations, in the residential area as it was causing severe noise pollution. The civil Court after hearing the parties to the lis grants temporary injunction on an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC, restraining the usage of the unit by the petitioner – firm, on 01.03.2025. The petitioner calls this in question before the first appellate Court in M.A.No.18/2025. The first appellate Court rejects the appeal in terms of the order dated 02.06.2025. It is these two orders that has driven the firm before this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise, who is permitted to run the Unit in the residential area. He would take this Court through the license granted to run the Unit. Notwithstanding the same, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have instituted the suit due to noise pollution and that the firm has now stopped from running the Unit as the civil Court has granted temporary injunction. The noise generated in the Unit is within the permissible limit and not beyond the standards stipulated under the statute. Therefore, he would seek that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27930 WP No. 18789 of 2025 this Court may set aside the impugned orders; conditions be imposed in respect of the noise that generates i.e., decibel levels, while the Unit is in operation and that the Unit be permitted to run. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would vehemently refute the submissions taking this Court through the report of the Karnataka State Pollution Board. He would submit that the Unit was inspected, a report was drawn and in the report it is indicated that the noise pollution during the operations of the Unit, the decibel levels in the night and day time are beyond the permissible limits and therefore, both the Courts have concurrently observed that the petitioner should not run the Unit. The matter is still pending before the concerned Court and there is no warrant of interference, is his submission. He seeks dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27930 WP No. 18789 of 2025 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner – Firm is a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise, secures commercial license from the hands of the Gram Panchayat to run the Unit. A lease deed is entered into pursuant to the license, with the owner of the premises to run the Unit. The Unit is said to have causing noise pollution as the sound it generated is beyond the permissible decibel levels. A complaint comes to be registered. The complaint leads to inspection of the Unit by the Karnataka State Pollution Board. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 owing to huge noise pollution, institute a suit in O.S.No.616/2024 seeking injunction against the Firm from running its Unit. The concerned Court directs the Karnataka State Pollution Board to inspect and submit a report. The report of inspection is as follows: “Preamble: Smt. Manju w/o Deivendra Kumar, residing at #4, Cosmos May flower Gardenia, Hennagara, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban district had filed complaint at Board Office through ICCC, dated: 15.09.2022 against M/s GRS Engineering Works, Sy. No.37/6, Site No.1, Opp. Lassay Wood Layout, Near B S Carmel Public School, Hennagara Post, Bengaluru Urban District regarding: noise pollution being caused from the aforementioned unit which is located adjacent the complainant's house. In view of the complaint the industry was inspected on 28.09.2022 and observed that, industry was under operation and engaged in the turning works, crane part works & heavy duty lathe work. The activity is similar to general engineering and fabrication - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27930 WP No. 18789 of 2025 work without any trade effluent generation/ metal surface treatment. The activity of Engineering and fabrication units (dry process without any heat treatment /metal surface finishing operations /painting) falls under white category under Sl. no. 14 of Board office notification vide no. 1232, dated: 14.07.2016. As per the said notification, the white category industries shall not be included in the Consent Mechanism. Since, the proprietor of the industry failed to produce land conversion obtained for industrial activity & it was established adjacent to residential layout, a notice was addressed to industry vide no. 613, dated: 01.10.2022 to relocate the industry to designated industrial area. Subsequently, a letter was also addressed to Panchayath development Officer, Hennagara Gram Panchayath (GP) vide no.695, dated: 29.10.2022 to withdraw the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued to Industry and to take further action. Copy of notice issued to industry and letter addressed to GP is enclosed as Annexure-1. Later, Sri. Deivendra Kumar- Residing at, #4, Cosmos May flower Gardenia, Hennagara, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban district had filed complaint through IPGRS grievance no. 117041, dated: 12.08.2023 against the aforementioned unit with respect to noise pollution. In this regard, a letter was addressed to Panchayath Development Officer, Hennagara Gram Panchayath (GP) vide no.1582, dated: 01.02.2024 to take action against the industry and to write the letter to Bescom authorities to disconnect the power supply to industry. copy enclosed as Annexure-II. Again, this office was in receipt of telephonic complaint from Smt. Manju w/o Deivendra Kumar- Complainant & Residing at, #4, Cosmos May flower Gardenia, Hennagara, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban district regarding the noise against same aforementioned. Hence, this office inspected the industry on 18.03.2024 and monitored the noise within the premises of complainant house. The maximum noise recorded was Lmax- 78.72 dB(A) and Lmax. 72.57 dB(A) and it was learnt that, Hennagara Gram Panchayath (GP) had issued commercial license to industry, Hence again a letter was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27930 WP No. 18789 of 2025 addressed PDO, Hennagara GP to take necessary action against the unit on public nuisance as per the Karnataka Municipality Act and Panchayath Raj Act vide no. 32, dated: 10.04.2024, copy enclosed Annexure-III. Meantime, Smt. Manju w/o Deivendra Kumar, on 24.10.2024 called and informed about the Directions issued from Hon'ble Judge, JMFC, Anekal to Karnataka State Pollution Control Board regarding the submission of report. Hence, the industry was again inspected on 25.10.2024 in presence of representative from Hennagara GP, Industry proprietor, land owner, Complainants and following observations were made on 25.10.2024; 1. The industry was under operation & engaged in lathe machine operations and turning of printing machine rollers on job work basis 2. The industry is located at GPS reading of 12.789432N, 77.676175E & surrounded by towards north-entry road to industry, towards South- Agricultural land, towards East-Agricultural Land & towards west-the complainant house 3. Installed 4 number of lathe machines of length 16feet (2 Nos), 18 feet (1 No) & 8 feet (1 No) as informed by proprietor, there was one Drilling machine & one tool grinder and all 4 lathe machineries are in operation condition. 4. The number of workers were two, one helper apart from proprietor. 5. The tool grinder used for grinding/sharpening the tools generates high noise when it is in use as observed during inspection. 6. In the presence of above mentioned officers and persons, noise monitoring was conducted at both industry premises and complainant house when all the machineries were under operation and stopped by using noise level monitoring device provided by the Board bearing model number -S12, (SL.M/Noise - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27930 WP No. 18789 of 2025 Dosimeter) and serial number is SV10MM021062. The noise was recorded as below: Sl. No. Location Machinery Operating Status Leq(in) dB(A) LMax dB(A) Leq(Avg ) dB(A) Stopped 35.23 40.5 34.76 1 Industry: M/s GRS Engineering Works, Sy. No.37/6, Site No.1, Opp. Lassay Wood Layout Near B.S. Carmel Public School, Hennagara Post Bengaluru Urban District - 560099 Operating 53.38 55.23 53.29 Stopped 37.47 49.31 37.47 2 Complainant House: M/s. Sri. Devendra Kumar, Site No.4, Cosmos Mayflower, Gardenia, Hennagara, Jigani Hobli, Anekla taluk, Bengaluru Urban District-560099 Operating 35.84 60.27 35.84 As per the rule 3(1) and 4(1) of Noise Rules, 2000, the Ambient Air Quality Standards in respect of Noise, the limits will be as below: Limits in db(A) Leq Category of Area/ zone Day time Night Time Industrial area 75 70 Residential area 55 45 Commercial Area 65 55 Silence Zone 50 40 From the above monitoring data when the machineries under operation, the noise level 1 (leq) at both industry premises and complainant home, are well within the noise limits set for residential area. However, the maximum - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27930 WP No. 18789 of 2025 noise was recorded as 60.27 dB(A) when the machineries were under operation. A mahazar was conducted at the time inspection in presence of above mentioned persons/officers. (Emphasis added) In terms of the Ambient Air Quality Standards as obtaining under the statute indicates that the noise in a residential area is limited by certain decibels i.e., in the day time it is 55 and in the night time it is 45 decibels. The report indicates that the industry when it is not operating is said to have generated noise at 40.50 decibels and when it is in operation it generates 55.23 decibels in the Unit and the noise at the plaintiffs’ house i.e. neighbour's house, the maximum noise generated in decibels is at 60.27 decibels, when it is in operation and when the unit is stopped, it generates noise decibels at 49.31. 8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - defendants submits that the decibel levels generated by the Unit, while it is operating has not crossed 50.51 decibels. He would submit that the Unit is running within the standard decibel levels stipulated under the statute. The Unit when it is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27930 WP No. 18789 of 2025 stopped, whatever noise it emits, it cannot be equated with the noise that emanates, when it is operating. 9. In the light of the aforesaid facts and submissions, it is germane to notice the order passed by the civil Court. It reads as follows: "6. Point No.1 to 3:-These points are taken up together for common discussion as it involves common question of law and facts and to avoid repetition. 7. The plaintiffs to prove their case have produced the letter dated 10.04.2024 issued by KSPCB addressing the Panchyath Development Officer of Hennagara Gram Panchayath to take necessary action for causing public nuisance. The recitals of the document says that the officers of KSPCB have visited the spot where the plaintiffs are carrying engineering work and inspected the noise level, which exceeds the ambient noise i.e., 78.2 dB level but stipulated for residential area is 55 dB. Further plaintiffs have produced certified copy of the order sheet, plaint and written statement of O.S.No.223/2024 which was filed by the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction against the plaintiffs herein. The counsel for the plaintiffs address his argument that when an order injunction goes against the defendants herein he withdrew the said suit. 8. As per the direction of the court KSPCB has conducted spot inspection in GRS engineering works at filed a detailed report on 12.04.2024. As per the said report after running of all the machineries the enamarating sound at plaintiff's house is 50.51dB which is within standards. By relying on this document counsel for the defendants argued that the plaintiffs unnecessarily troubling the defendants. But the point for consideration is both the documents discussed above are filed by KSPCB and there are irregularities in their opinion. Further it is common sense that the sounds of any machines will not remain same it fluctuate as and when - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27930 WP No. 18789 of 2025 the nature of object with which the machines operates. So it is not that the sound pollution is high all time and vice versa. Why because the plaintiffs have produced a report of noise pollution where in it shows that 60.8 Db which is more than normal dB. 9. Coming to the license of the defendants, from the documents placed by both plaintiffs and defendants it is made out that defendants have obtained license as per sec.66 of Karnataka panchayath Raj Act, in the year 2021-2022 but for non payment of license fee same is not extended. Again the defendants by paying the license fee has extended the license. Hence now with respect to license or permission appears that there are no issues. 10. What court observes is the conduct of the parties. Because while granting the order of temporary injunction along with the three basic ingredients such as prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss parties court has to see conduct of the parties. Here in this the defendants who happens to be the plaintiffs in O.S 223/2024 had withdrew the suit when order of injunction goes against them. Why because by the time the report verbalize that the decibel limit was more than normal. Now the report is exactly opposite to it. Hence I am of the opinion that plaintiffs have succeeded that they have prima facie case. Because the health and peaceful life of the plaintiffs and their family members are defeating. Which needs to be protected. Result of which balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs. If an order of injunction is not granted certainly plaintiffs will be put to greater hardship. Accordingly point No.1 to 3 are answered in the Affirmative. 11. Point No.4:- In the light of foregoing discussions and reason made out under Point No.1 to 3 this court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The application filed by the plaintiffs U/o XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 R/w Section 151 of CPC is hereby allowed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27930 WP No. 18789 of 2025 The defendant No.1 is hereby temporarily restrained from carrying on engineering works or operations in residential layout adjacent to the suit property till disposal of the suit." (Emphasis added) The concerned Court considering the application of respondent Nos.1 and 2 grants temporary injunction. The first appellate Court has confirmed it, by the following reasons: "12. POINT NO.1:- Admitted facts are; Suit schedule property and property of defendants are adjacent to each other. Plaintiffs are the owners of suit schedule property and residing in the suit schedule property by constructing house. Defendant No.1 running engineering works which includes leath machine in the property adjacent to suit schedule property. These facts are not disputed. Litigation is only regarding noise emanating from the defendant No.1 engineering works. Along with appeal plaintiffs produced general license issued by the Hennagara Gram Panchayath, tax paid receipt, GST Registration Certificate, these documents will not play vital role, because running of engineering works by the defendant No.1 near the suit schedule property is admitted. Only dispute is. whether noise coming out of engineering works is more than permissible limit or not?. According to Pollution Control Board, noise level in residential area during the day is 55 DB and 45 DB for night and this is permissible limit. Any noise more than 55 and 45 is barred. On the direction of trial court, Report was submitted by Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, which discloses that on 12.11.2024 they visited complainant's house i.e., plaintiff house, when the machineries of the industry work were running, at the time of operation of machines, sound was 50.51 DB i.e., less than 55 DB. Appellant also placed mahazar, it discloses that mahazar was prepared in the spot on the direction of court. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27930 WP No. 18789 of 2025 As per Report, secured by the trial court noise and pollution was less than 50.51 DB. Learned counsel for appellant argued that permissible limit is 55 DB. As per repon submitted before the trial court, at the time of operation of machines, noise was less than 55 DB, hence, orders of trial court are against the material facts, without any basis. Learned counsel also placed some photographs and submitted that other residents were not complaining noise, only plaintiffs with an intention to cause of harm making false allegations. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 argued that sound pollution is more than permissible limit. Before institution of suit, State Pollution Control Board visited spot and also noted that sound pollution is more than permissible limit and as per Pollution Control Board, noise pollution is more than permissible limit. Learned counsel draw the attention of Court, towards the mahazar, which was prepared by one Deputy Environment Officer on 25.10.2024, wherein at para No.10 officer recorded the quantum of noise, as per it, when machinery is in operation noise was 60.27 DB, that means it is more than permissible limit. Same mahazar was placed by the appellant along with appeal memo. Apart from this, Respondent No.2 produced endorsement given by the Hennagara Grama Panchayath, wherein it is stated that appellant not obtained license for construction of industry and also not renewed license for running of industry. Endorsement dated 27.04.2024 discloses that construction made by the defendant No.1 is without sanction and running business without renovation of license. Here the question regarding license for construction of building and for running of business is not for consideration, only consideration is whether sound level is more than permissible limit or not ?. As stated above, one officer of environmental board clearly observed that, when noise heard from the complainant house, noise emanated from the industry of defendant No.1 is more than 60.27 DB that means it is more than permissible limit. Apart from this. during course of arguments, court directed both persons to record noise, while operation all machines and to submit the videos. Videos were observed in phones of both parts in the open court. During observation, it was observed that leath machine installed in the defendant No.1 engineering works is producing more noise, it is not - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27930 WP No. 18789 of 2025 possible for adjacent owners to reside in the house. It is commonsense that when leath machine is operated, it will cause huge noise, depending on the object on which machine is working. Engineering works eminates lot of sound and it is not possible for human being to reside adjacent to engineering works. Admittedly, defendant No.1 is in lease and structure installed by the defendant No.1 may be removed and transferred. Plaintiffs are residing in their own property by constructing house, it cannot be transferred. Because of sound eminating from engineering works, plaintiffs are unable to lead normal life. Defendant No.1 not covered his engineering works with sound proof object. Trial court rightly held that plaintiffs are having prima facia case, at this stage, material placed before the court, disclose that sound producing by the engineering works, i.e., defendant No.1 engineering works is more than 55 DB, at this stage, materials placed clearly establishes that plaintiffs are having case for trial, hence, this Point answered in the Affirmative. 13. Point No.2 & 3: These Points involves common question of facts, hence, taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and for convenience. Trial court rightly held that plaintiffs are having prima facia case. Trial court further held that plaintiffs are having balance of convenience in their favour and irreparable injury will caused to plaintiffs, if injunction is rejected. As discussed at Point No.1, plaintiffs having case for trial. If injunction is rejected, defendant No.1 is permitted to carry out his engineering works, it will cause bad impact on the residency of Plaintiff's home, Sound which is emanating from engineering works, may cause serious health problems to the plaintiffs. On the other hand, if injunction is granted, defendants are restrained from carrying the business, defendants may shift business to any other place, which is suitable to carry his engineering works. Carrying engineering works in the residential area will cause public nuisance and also will impact on the health of public. At this stage, plaintiffs will have balance of convenience and they suffer injury if - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27930 WP No. 18789 of 2025 injunction is rejected, hence, these Points answered in the Affirmative." (Emphasis added) In the light of the aforesaid facts and the report of the inspection, which clearly indicates that the noise emanated from the Unit is beyond the permissible decibel levels and therefore, injuncted the petitioner from operating its Unit in the residential premises. 10. I do not find any warrant to interfere with the well reasoned orders passed by both the civil Court and the appellate Court. The petition lacking in merit, stands rejected. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65