HC directs UT Collector to decide on noise norm complaints by clubs, discotheques

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the UT Collector to take a final decision on noise pollution complaints against clubs and discotheques in Chandigarh’s Sector 7 and Sector 26. Residents had alleged frequent violations of noise pollution norms, particularly between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., caused by loud music amplified through speakers in these establishments. 

The case before the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal stems from writ petitions filed by the Resident Welfare Association (RWA) and the clubs. Among other things, the RWA through senor advocate Puneet Bali argued that the right to live in an environment free from noise pollution, recognised under Article 21 of the Constitution, superseded the clubs’ right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g). The counsel emphasised: “Despite repeated challans and warnings, these clubs and discotheques are not adhering to the norms laid down by the UT Administration and Central Rules,” it was added.

Appearing on the UT’s behalf, senior advocate Amit Jhanji with Sanjiv Ghai and Sukhmani Patwalia supported the RWA’s case before submitting that all steps were being taken by the Administration to enforce Noise Pollutions (Regulation and Control) Rules, “read with” Noise Pollution Regulation framed by UT Administration”.

Countering the allegations, counsel representing the clubs and discotheques submitted that the petitioner’s fundamental right to carry business was being violated by issuing repeated notices. It was further submitted that the petitioners were running the club/discotheques after getting requisite permission from various departments

Their counsel added that the withdrawal of ‘consent to operate’ by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) was in violation of principles of “audi alteram partem” and the court was required to “exercise judicial review to set aside the show cause notices, which are arbitrary and not issued with an open mind”.

The court was assisted in the matter by senior counsel D.S. Patwalia and Sanjay Kaushal, along with advocates Kannan Malik, Karan Nehra and Abhay Josan.

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Kshetarpal referred to Chandigarh’s structured planning before asserting that the city – celebrated for its meticulous planning – was intersected by Madhya Marg, a key road dividing the city and connecting Panchkula on one side and New Chandigarh on the other.

Along the arterial road, Sectors 7 and 26 host bars and discotheques. Over time, economic pressures transformed the showroom-cum-offices into high-demand establishments such as hotels, clubs, and discotheques. The UT Administration allowed certain modifications, including partial coverage of rear courtyards and basement constructions. However, repeated requests to fully cover the courtyards and create box-type structures were denied, adhering to the city’s heritage norms. Despite this, many clubs have erected retractable roofs or temporary structures over the backyards.

“Most of the clubs have covered the entire backyard by creating retraceable roofs/temporary structures. Recently, also on the recommendation of Heritage Committee, the demand of hoteliers to cover the remaining part of the courtyard through temporary/retraceable roofs has been rejected,” the Bench observed

The court added the Administration, upon payment of an additional fee, permitted clubs and discotheques to serve liquor until 3:00 a.m. The extension had sparked conflicts among residents, business establishments, and the Administration, primarily due to loud music played by these establishments in violation of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, which prohibit noise during night hours from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.

The Bench added the clubs and discotheques had challenged the show-cause notices issued by the Collector, Excise. “The clubs and discotheques have been granted an opportunity to mend their ways, i.e. stop violating regulations and submit reply”.

The court added it was incorrect to allege that the show-cause notices had not been issued with open mind. The Collector, Excise, had given notice to the clubs and discotheques to file their replies. The Bench directed the Collector, Excise, to take a final decision on the other issues as well.