JOIN USGranting temporary relief to builders, the High Court on Tuesday allowed the construction sector in the State to go ahead with its work between 6 am and 8 am and from 6 pm to 10 pm, the period during which it was restricted from taking up work.
Hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition by the J P Nagar First Phase Residents’ Welfare Association challenging the permission to a construction firm, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice B V Nagarathna granted them temporary relief till March 31, 2013 to carry out works which are not in violation of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
Following an affidavit by the Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (CREDAI), seeking relaxation of time to carry out some of the works which cause no noise pollution or disturbance to the public, the Bench warned of action in case of violation of the order.
The court observed, “We are optimistic that the respondents adhere to the steps and measures to prevent noise pollution and prevent disturbance to the civilians.” Stating that the arrangement shall continue till March 31, the Bench said that the same will be reviewed later and if necessary, amendments will be made.
CREDAI had pointed out in its affidavit that movement of heavy vehicles had been banned between 7.30 am to 11 am and 4.30 pm to 8.30 pm by the Bangalore City traffic police and with the construction activities too being prohibited from 6 am to 8 am and 6 pm to 10 pm, the members under it were facing problems.
Seeking to implead itself in the petition, CREDAI had appealed to the Bench to allow them to carry out construction activities and had assured to keep the noise pollution under check in accordance with the noise pollution rules.
Accordingly, CREDAI said works like tying steel, block works, plastering, painting, landscaping and transportation of materials and removal of debris could be taken up. Some of these works could be taken up without noise pollution, while noise pollution of some of the others could be minimised.
The counsel for the petitioners, in his objections to the affidavit, said CREDAI had failed to implement the code of conduct among its members and that the code of conduct was recommendatory in nature and could not be enforced.
Pointing out that CREDAI had no powers to punish, he said the application did not disclose what action had been taken against violators of its code of conduct.