Holding

The separate writ petition is not maintainable; any relief must be sought in the earlier proceeding, and Rang Bhavan remains within the statutory silence zone.

Summary

The appellant, Farhd K. Wadia, sought a writ directing that Rang Bhavan, an open‑air theatre in Mumbai, be exempted from the "silence zone" provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, after his application to use loudspeakers was rejected following a 2003 Bombay High Court order in a earlier public‑interest litigation. The Supreme Court examined whether the new writ petition was maintainable, given that the earlier petition (Writ No. 2053 of 2003) had already imposed an injunction on loudspeaker use in silence zones. The Court held that any modification, clarification or relaxation of that injunction must be sought within the same proceeding, and a separate petition is barred by the doctrine of comity. It further affirmed that Rang Bhavan falls within the 100‑metre "silence zone" around educational institutions and hospitals as defined in the Rules, and therefore the ban on loudspeakers remains valid. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether a separate writ petition seeking exemption of Rang Bhavan from the silence zone is maintainable in view of the earlier injunction in Writ Petition No. 2053 of 2003.
Whether Rang Bhavan is covered by the "silence zone" definition under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
Whether the Bombay High Court erred in interpreting the Rules and imposing a ban on loudspeaker use at Rang Bhavan.
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to modify or relax the earlier order.

Legislation cited

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986s. 25, s. 3(2), s. 6(1), s. 6(2)
Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000

Subjects

noise pollutionsilence zonepublic interest litigationwrit petitionenvironmental lawright to silencecomityexemptionenvironmental health

Judgment

e
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 140
..
A FARHD K. WADIA
-1'""
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.7131 of 2008)
r DECEMBER 5, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
,,
··-<-
.JI
Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 -
Control and regulation of noise pollution - Interference by
c Couri - Scope - Held: In respect of noise pollution,
interference by Court is premised on the basis that a citizen
has certain rights being 'necessity of silence', 'necessity of
.......
sleep', 'process during sleep'·and 'rest', which are biological
necessities and essential for health - Noise is injurious to
D human health which is required to be preserved at any cost.

Constitution of India, 1950-Art.226- Two writ petitions
- Subsequent writ petition - Maintainability of - Held: Not
maintainable, when filed to achieve a purpose indirectly which
could not be achieved directly in view of .the order passed in .
E
the earlier writ petition - Doctrine of comity/amity.

In an earlier writ petition (public interest litigatfon)
filed before· the High Court, the petitioners had sought a
direction to the State to curb noise pollution created by
F reason of use of loudspeakers in the city of Mumbai, l
particularly during the festive seasons of Navratri and '-"-
Ganesh Utsav, in areas which have been and should be ·
declared as silence zone. By an interim order dated 25-
09-2003, the High Court prohibited grant of loudspeaker
G permission in respect of "silence zone" as defined and
discussed in the Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control)
Rules, 2000, as amended from time to time and on a
review application being filed thereagainst by the State,
·;A.~
•·-
~

H
the Court clarified that the prohibition would apply to
140 •
...
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 17 S.C.R.

A Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The High Court in the earlier public
interest litigation, being Writ Petition No. 2053 of 2003, had
passed an order of injunction. If the said order was
required to be modified or clarified and/or relaxation was
8
to be prayed for and granted in regard to Rang Bhavan,
the appellant should have filed an application in the said
proceeding. An independent public interest litigation to
obtain a relief which would be contrary to and
C inconsistent with the order of injunction passed by the
court was not maintainable. Inter alia, the doctrine of
comity or amity demands the same. It was not that the
appellant was not aware of the said order. The premise
on which the appellant's application was rejected was the
said order dated 25.09.2003 passed in the said Writ
D Petition No. 2053 of 2003. The State of Maharashtra felt
itself and in fact was bound by the order dated 25.09.2003
and as such filed an application for modification in the
said Writ Petition No. 2053 of 2003, which was not
allowed. The High Court, while passing its interim order
E dated 25.09.2003, did not state that silence zone was
required to be declared, but passed the order of restraint
in respect of silence zone, as 'defined and discussed in
the Rules'. The parties thereto and particularly the State
of Maharashtra understood the said order in that light.
F One fails to understand as to on what premise the writ
petition could have been entertained by the High Court.
The writ petition was filed to achieve a purpose indirectly
which coufd not be achieved directly. [Paras 14, 15 and
17] [149-E-G; 152-A-B]
G
1.2. Interference by the court in respect of noise
pollution is premised on the basis that a citizen has
certain rights being 'necessity of silence', 'necessity of
sleep', iprocess during sleep' and 'rest', which are
biological necessities and essential for health. Silence is
H
FARHD K. WADIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 143

considered to be golden. It is considered to be one of the A
~-
human rights as noise is injurious to human health which
is required to be preserved at any cost. This Court in
various matters have also taken suo motu cognizance as
regards noise pollution and passed orders from time to
time. The State Government is bound also by the order B
of this Court besides the order passed by the High Court.
If any order of relaxation and/ or modification is required
to be passed, it is only to be passed by this Court and
'\. the High,Court in the aforementioned two writ petitions.
A separate writ petition thus, was not maintainable. [Paras c
18, 20 and 23] [152-A-C; 153-D; 155-A-B]
~
Om Birangana Religious Society v. State of West Bengal
(1996) 100 CWN 617; Noise Pollution, In Re. v. Union of India
and another, (2005) 5 sec121, (2005) 5 sec 728, (2005) 5
sec 130 and (2005) 5 sec 731, (2005) 5 sec 733, (2005) D
8sec 796, referred to
1-
Noise Pollution, Laws & Remedies by Justice Bhagabati
Prosad Banerjee, referred to.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7131 of 2008.

From the Judgment and final Order dated 16.8.2004 of the
',
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2557
of 2004 . F
.1
S. Ganesh, Harish Jagtiani, R.G. Padia, Bhargava V.
Desai, Rahul Gupta, Reema Sharma, Savitri Pandey, Sanjay
Pandey, D.S. Mahra (for Anil Katiyar), Mukesh Verma, Yash Pal
Dhingra, Vivek Vishnoi and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the G
'
appearing parties.

~ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS - [2008] 17 S.C.R.
e
;.

A 2. Whether musical functions in an open theatre being
Rang Bhavan should be allowed to be carried on or not despite _.,...
the fact that it is situate within 100 meters of an educational
institution and a hospital, is the question involved in this appeal
which arises out of a judgment and order dat~d 16.08.2004
B passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ
Petition No. 2257 of 2004.

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. -
,,._
.

~
Rang Bhavan is an institution owned and run by the State
c of Maharashtra. It is the only open theatre in the city of Mumbai.
It is let out on hire for the purpose of holding music and cultural
programmes. It charges a meagre amount for allowing private
parties to hold functions. It has a sitting capacity of 4000
persons. It is stated that the world's greatest artists, both
D Western·~nd Indian, have performed therein.

Dr. Yeshwant Trimbak Oke & Ors. filed a public interest
litigation for a direction to the State to curb noise pollution in
general in the city of Mumbai and particularly during the festive
season of Navratri arid Ganesh Utsav.
E
4. On or about 25.09.2003, an order was passed by a
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, directing:

"(1) pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, i.e.,
F Writ Petition No. 2053 of 2003, no loudspeaker
permission be granted in respect of "Silence Zone" as
· defined and discussed in the Noise Pollution (Regulation '+..
& Control) Rules, 2000, as amended from time to time.

(2) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, the
G . respondents are directed to issue loudspeaker permission
verifying and certifying before granting permission that the
loudspeaker will not be used in a designated Silence Zone. -:---

(3) The authorities will also ensure implementation and ~

H observance of the conditions mentioned in the permission.
FARHD K. WADIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 145
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
")

(4) It is also clarified that in case the petitioners point out A
that there is violation at any place, the authorities will take
appropriate action in accordance with law."

5. A review application was filed thereagainst by the State
of Maharashtra. The submission made by the learned Advocate' B
General for the State therein as recorded by the High Court in
its order dated 19.12.2003 is as under:

--r\ "4. The learned Advocate General submitted that reading
Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000
(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") with the Schedule c
thereto, it is clear that the silence zone which has been
~ defined in Note to the Schedule would not include
hospitals, educational institutions, Courts, religious places
or any other area which is declared as such by the
Competent Authority, but the prohibition under Rule 6 would D
apply to the areas comprising not less than 100 metres
around such institutions."

On the said review petition, it was held:

"7. So far as first point is concerned, in our opinion, E
direction issued by us on September 25, 2003 is clear.
Prima facie, it appears to us that the provisions of the
Rules would apply to "an area comprising not less than
hundred metres around" hospitals, educational institutions,
Courts, religious places or any other area which is F
. -+-
'l declared as such by the competent authority. In our view,
this would be in consonance with the phraseology used in
clause (i) of Rule 6 which totally prohibits playing of "any
music" or using of "any sound amplifiers". Had it been the
intention of the Rule making authority, it would not have G
used the expression "an area comprising not less than 100
metres around hospitals, educational institutions, Court,
---..; religious places, etc. Moreover, such interpretation would
also permit activities within those institutions in accordance
with law. H
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
e
A 8. At the same time, however, the apprehension voiced by
the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has also been taken
care of. It cannot be considered that with regard to such
organizations, institutions, etc. there is neither any standard
nor limit whatsoever. In respect of such institutions also, the
B general provisions laid down in Rule 5 which place
restriction on' the use of lou9 speaker/ public address
system would apply."

6. While the said order was operating, the appellant made
C an application to book Rang Bhavan from 13th to 15th August,
2004 in regard to performance of Western Cultural Music. The
said applic::ation was rejected by the State by an order dated
02.06.2004, stating:

"By the order of the Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai, dated
D 25/09/2003 under the Noise Pollution (Control &
Regulation) Rules 2000, the use of loudspeakers in a
silence zone has been banned. Also the Senior Inspector
of Police, Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai has in
accordance with the direction of the Hon'ble High Court,
E informed in writing that the use of loudspeakers during
cultural programmes at Rangbhavan will not be permitted.

For the above-mentioned reasons, your request vide your
letter dated 01/05/2004 to book Rang Bhavan for 3 days,
i.e., on the 13th, 14th and 15th of August, 2004 is denied ..."
F
7. The Directorate of Cultural Affairs in a letter dated
09.07.2004 addressed to the-Secretary, Power Productions,
also stated: ·

G "You are hereby informed that, in accordance with the
Hon'ble High Court's order no. 2503 dated 25/09/2003,
Rangbhavan, Dhabi Talao, Mumbai, the open air theatre
comes under the silence zone and hence the use of
loudspeakers has been banned. For the above-mentioned
reasons, your request cannot be considered."
H
FARHD K. WADIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 147
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

8. Contending that the said Rang Bhavan had been lying A
-,.. closed for the past few years and the directions issued by t~e
High Court are not in consonance with the rules governing
..... noise pollution framed by the State of Maharashtra, a writ
petition was filed by the appellant herein. It was furthermore
pointed out that some educational institutions and hospitals B
have also been using loud speakers.

In the said writ petition, the following prayers were made:
--r,
"(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction c
in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and
proceedings relating to the obtaining of permission· to host
the Independence Rock Concert in the Rang Bhavan from
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and after satisfying itself of the
legality of the same to quash and set aside the impugned D
order dated 09.07.2004 ... ;

(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the
E
Respondents, their agents, servants and employees from
acting in any manner in furtherance of the impugned order
.
~
dated 09.07.2004 ... ;

(c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any F
'
-+ other appropriate writ,. direction or order compelling the
Respondents to issue appropriate orders exempting Rang
Bhavan from falling within the silence zone and further
directing the Respondents to permit Rang Bhavan to stage
concerts and other cultural and musical functions on Its G
premises;
--.., (d) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any
~
other appropriate, writ, direction or order directing the
H
A
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

.Respondents to permit the Petitioner to hold the
-
Independence Rock Festival on its premises on such
suitable dates between 6 _p.m; to 9 p.m. subject of course
._
to the availability of such premises on such suitable dates;

(e) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that Rang
8
Bhavan does not fall within the silence zone so as to be
precluded from utilization· of loudspeakers in hosting
cultural and musical events."
- t-
-f
9. As noticed hereinbefore, the said writ petition has been
c dismissed.

10. Mr~ S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant, drawing our attention to the relevant
rules, would contend that as no silence zone has been notified
D in terms of the statutory rules, the High Court committed a
serious error in passing the impugned judgment.

It was urged that, in any event, an exemption should be
granted in respect of Rang Bhavan having regard to the fact
that it is not possible to hold a musical event at any other place
E in the city of Mumbai at such cheap rates.

The· state ·of Maharashtra, the learned Senior Counsel
pointed out, has also been supporting the cause ·of the .
'-
appellant.
F.
11. Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Union of India, on the other hand, submitted that . '+- .,;.,
the cause of action for which the appellant filed the writ petition
being rejection of one-time request, the writ petition became t-
infructuous.
G
'
Our attention has furthermore been drawn to various orders
and judgments passed by this Court in regard to control and
r
regulation of noise pollution to contend that as the validity of
the rules framed by the Central Government has been upheld
H by this Court, no interference with the impugned judgment is )I
FARHD K. WADIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 149
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

called for. A
--1--

12. Appellant is the Chief Executive Officer of 'Power
r'
Productions', a leading Audio Studio in Mumbai. He does
soundtracks for movies, ad films, etc. He is said to be a concert
promoter in India for over 18 years. He in the said writ petition B
questioned the validity of the order dated 09.07.2004 passed
by the respondents.
~
, Dr. Yeshwant Trimbak Oke & Ors., who had filed the public
\-
interest litigation being Writ Petition (PIL) No. 2053 of 2003,
were not impleaded as parties in the proceedings. An c
application for modification of the order passed therein had also
not been filed in the second public interest litigation.

13. Whereas the public interest litigation was filed by Dr.
Yeshwant Trimbak Oke & Ors. contending that noise pollution D
created by reason of use of loudspeakers be curbed in the
areas which have been and should be declared as silence
zone, the purported public interest litigation was filed by the
appellant herein to seek an exception therefor.

14. The High Court in the earlier public interest litigation, E
being Writ Petition No. 2053 of 2003, admittedly passed an
order of injunction. If the said order was required to be modified
or clarified and/or relaxation was to be prayed for and granted
in regard to Rang Bhavan, the appellant should have filed an
application in the said proceeding. An independent public F

-
\
--+ interest litigation to obtain a relief which would be contrary to
and inconsistent with the order of injunction passed by the court
was not maintainable. Inter alia, the doctrine of comity or amity
demands the same.
G
15. It was not that the appellant was not aware of the said
or~er. As indicated hereinbefore, the premise on which the
...,.,: appellant's application was rejected was the said order dated

- 25.09.2003 passed in the said Writ Petition No. 2053 of 2003.
The State of Maharashtra felt itself and in fact was bound H
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
e
A by the order dated 25.09.2003 and as such filed an application
for modification in the said Writ Petition No. 2053 of 2003, --r
which, as noticed hereinbefore, was not allowed.

We fail to understand as to on what premise the writ
petition could have been entertained by the High Court. We are
B
. constrained to opine that the writ petition was filed to achieve
a purpose indirectly which could not be achieved directly. The
High Court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any -r
-{
error in passing the impugned judgment.

c 16. The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules,
2000 (for short "the Rules") have been framed by the Central
Government in exercise of its power conferred by clause (ii) of
sub-section (2) of Section 3, sub-section (1) and clause (b) of
sub-section (2) of Section 6 and Section 25 of the Environment
D (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Rule 5 of the Environment
(Protection) Rules, 1986.
'I.-
y
"Area/Zone" has been defined to mean all areas which fall
in either of the four categories given in the Schedule annexed
to the Rules.
E
"Educational institution" and "hospital" have been defined
in Rules 2(e) and 2(f) of the Rules in the following terms:

"(e) "educational institution" means a school, seminary,
F college, university, professional academies, training
I
institutes or other educational establishment, not --4._
....
necessarily a chartered institution and includes not only
buildings, but also all grounds necessary for the
accomplishment of the full scope of educational instruction,
G including those things essential to mental, moral and
physical development;

(f) "hospital" means an institution for the reception and care T

of sick, wounded, infirm or aged persons, and includes
government or private hospitals, nursing homes and
H clinics."
FARHD K. WADIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 151
[S.S. SINHA, J.]

Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of the Rules reads as under: A

"(5) An area comprising not less than 100 meters around
hospitals, educational institutions and courts may be
declared as silence areaizone for the purpose of these
rules."
B
Rule 5 of the Rules reads as under:
-..
\ "5. Restrictions on the use of loudspeakers/public address
system.-(1) A loudspeaker or a public address system
shall not be used except after obtaining written permission c
from the authority.

(2) A loudspeaker or a public address system shall not be
used at night (between 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m.) except in
closed premises for communication within, e.g. auditoria,
D
conference rooms, community halls and banquet halls.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), the
State Government may, subject to such terms and
conditions as are necessary to reduce noise pollution,
permit use of loudspeakers or public address systems E
during night hours (between 10.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight)
on or during any cultural or religious festive occasion of a
limited duration not exceeding fifteen days in all during a ·
calendar year."
F
Ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for
'
--+
silence zone have been prescribed in the Schedule. Note 3
appended thereto, however, reads as under:

"3. Silence Zone is an area comprising not less than 100
metres around hospitals, educational institutions, courts, G

~
- religious places or any other area which is declared as
such by the competent authority."

17. Contention that the State Government has not declared
the said zone as a silence zone, in our opinion, is besides the

l
H
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 17 S.C.R.

A point. The High Court, while passing its interim order dated
25.09.2003, did not state that silence zone, was required to be
declared, but passed the order of restraint in respect of silence.
zone, as 'defined and discussed in the ·Rules'. The parties
thereto and particularly the State of Maharashtra understood the
s said order in that light.

18. Interference by the court in respect of noise pollution
is premised on the basis that a citizen has certain rights being
'necessity of silence' 'necessity of sleep' 'process during sleep'
I I

C and 'rest', which are biological necessities and essential for
health. Silence is considered to be golden. It is considered to
be one of the human rights as noise is injurious to human health
which is required to be preserved at any cost. [See Noise
Pollution, Laws & Remedies by Justice Bhagabati Prasad
Banerjee]
D
19. The Calcutta High Court in several judgments and in
particular in Om Birangana Religious Society v. State of West
Bengal (decided on 11th August, 1998) issued various
directions; some of them being:
E
"(a) there will be complete ban on the use of horn type loud-
speakers within city residential areas and also prohibit the
use of play back of pre-recorded music etc. through such
horn type loud-speakers unless used with sound-limiter.

F (b) Jn cultural functions which are live functions, use of such
pre-recorded music should not be used excepting for the
purpose of announcement and/ or actual performance and
placement of speaker boxes should be restricted within the
area of performance facing the audience. No s~und
generating devise should be placed outside the main area
of performance.

(c) Cultural programmes in open air may be held excepting
at lea.st before three days of holding Board/ Council
Examinations to till examinations are completed in
H
FARHD K. WADIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 153
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

residential areas or areas where educational institutions A
~
are situated.

(d) The distance of holding such functior;is from the silence
zones should be 100 meters and in so far as Schools,
Colleges, Universities, Courts are concerned, it will be B
treated as silence zones till the end of the office hours and/
or the teaching hours. Hospitals and some renowned and
- ~
important Nursing Homes will be treated as silence zones
round the clock."

[See Noise Pollution, Laws & Remedies by Justice c
.i Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, pages 327-328]

20. This Court has also taken suo motu cognizance as
regards noise pollution. It passed various orders from time to
time in Noise Pollution, In Re. v. Union of India and Another, D
which are reported in [(2005) 5 sec 727], [(2005) 5 sec 728],
[(2005) 5 sec 730] and [(2005) 5 sec 731].

21. A detailed judgment was rendered by a Division Bench
of this Court in the said writ petition, which has since been
reported in [(2005) 5 SCC 733]. Several guidelines had been E
issued therein by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India. Therein, the
decision of the Calcutta High Court in Om Birangana Religious
Society v. State of West Bengal [(1996) 100 CWN 617] has

- 'I been taken note of. F
.. ..-
As regards loudspeakers and amplifiers, it was directed:

"171. Loudspeakers and amplifiers or other
equipment or gadgets which produce offending noise once
G
detected as violating the law, should be liable to be seized
and confiscated by making provision in the law in that
"" behalf."
.... 22. The matter again came up before this Court and an
order passed therein has been reported in [(2005) 8 sec 796]. H
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 17 S.C.R.

A The validity of the statutory rules framed by the Central
Government and in particular Rule 5 amended by rrotification
bearing No. S.O. 1088 (E) dated 11.10.2002 was taken note
of. The decision rendered by this Court reported in [(2005) 5
SCC .733] was clarified. This Court noticed that the
B constitutional validity of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Rules had
been upheld by the Kerala High Court by an order dated
14.03.2003 whereagainst an appeal was filed. The hearing of
the civil appeal was, therefore, directed to be re-opened. An
interim order was passed that until further orders, Rule 5 of the
c Rules, as reproduced therein, would continue to remain in
operation. The said appeal was thereafter taken up for hearing
by a Bench of this Court. It was disposed of on 28.10.2005.
This Court held that the Rules framed by the Central
Government were not unreasonable, stating:
D "... The power to grant exemption is conferred on the
State Government. It cannot be further delegated. The
power shall be exercised by reference to the State as a
unit and not by reference to districts, so as to specify
different dates for different districts. It can be reasonably
E expected that the State Government would exercise the
power with due care and caution and in the public interest.
However, we make it clear that the scope of the exemption
cannot be widened either by increasing the number of
days or by increasing the duration beyond two hours. If that
F is attempted to be done, then the said sub-rule (3)
conferring power to grant exemption may be liable to be
struck down as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution. We also make it clear that the State
Government should generally specify in advance, the
G number and particulars of the days on which .such
exemption will be operative. Such specification would
exclude arbitrariness in the exercise of power. The
exemption, when granted, shall not apply to silence zone
areas. This is only as a clarification as, this even otherwise
H is the position of law.

!
FARHD K. WADIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 155
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

23. The State Government is bound also by the order of A
this Court besides the order passed by the High Court. If any
order of relaxation and/ or modification is required to be
passed, it is only to be passed by this Court and the Bombay
High Court in the aforementioned two writ petitions. A separ~te
writ petition, in our opinion, thus, was not maintainable. 8
24. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in
this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly. In the fact$ and
circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as
to costs.
c
... B.B.B. Appeal dismissed .

-
(