NGT Upholds Forfeiture of Rs 10 Lakh Security Deposit Against Sunburn Festival Organiser for Noise Violations

The NGT Western Zone Bench dismissed Spacebound Web Labs' appeal against the Goa Pollution Control Board's forfeiture of a Rs 10 lakh security deposit over noise limit breaches at the 2022 Sunburn Music Festival.

The National Green Tribunal's Western Zone Bench at Pune has dismissed an appeal by Spacebound Web Labs Private Limited, the organiser of the Sunburn Music Festival, challenging the forfeiture of a Rs 10 lakh security deposit by the Goa State Pollution Control Board. The direction forfeiting the deposit was issued on 6 April 2023, following findings that noise levels during the festival held at Vagator, Goa from 28 to 30 December 2022 exceeded permissible limits. The Bench, comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee (Expert Member), found that the Bombay High Court at Goa had already returned a clear finding of breach against the appellant, and the Tribunal declined to sit in judgment over that conclusion.

The Dispute Before the Tribunal

Spacebound Web Labs organised the Sunburn Music Festival at Survey No. 206/1, Anjuna (Vagator), Bardez, Goa across three days in late December 2022. Prior to the event, the Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) issued a permission letter dated 26 December 2022 requiring the appellant to deposit Rs 3,50,000 as noise monitoring fees and Rs 10 lakh as a security deposit. The appellant complied. The Deputy Collector and SDM of Bardez separately granted permission for amplified sound on 28 December 2022, restricted to 15:30 hrs to 22:00 hrs.

After the festival concluded, the GSPCB issued a Show Cause Notice dated 6 January 2023, relying on an Inspection Report dated 2 January 2023. The appellant filed a detailed reply on 27 March 2023. The GSPCB then passed the direction dated 6 April 2023, forfeiting the entire Rs 10 lakh security deposit on the ground that the appellant had failed to maintain noise levels within prescribed limits during the event. That direction was served on the appellant on 18 April 2023, and the present appeal followed.

The Appellant's Case

Spacebound Web Labs raised several objections. It argued that all sound-generating equipment at the festival was fitted with in-built noise limiters, and that the GSPCB did not issue any notice of violation during the event itself. The appellant contended that the area around Vagator — a tourist zone surrounded by hotels, bars, restaurants, and a football ground — generated significant background noise independent of the festival, and that this background noise could not be attributed to the event.

On the monitoring methodology, the appellant pointed to the Goa Government's Action Plan for Noise Mapping dated 5 January 2022, which required 16 hours of daytime ambient noise monitoring to isolate event-specific noise from background noise. The GSPCB's Inspection Report, the appellant argued, was based on only 8 hours of monitoring and therefore could not reliably establish that the festival was the source of any exceedance.

The appellant also invoked Section 11 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 at length. Under Section 11(2), results of samples are inadmissible in legal proceedings unless the procedure under Sections 11(3) and 11(4) is followed. That procedure requires prior notice to the occupier, collection of samples in the occupier's presence, joint signing and sealing of containers, and dispatch to a government laboratory. The appellant submitted that none of these steps were followed, rendering the Inspection Report inadmissible.

On the Online Noise Monitoring System, the appellant stated that it had installed the display board but could not connect the system to the GSPCB's server because the Board never provided the necessary internet protocol or networking details, and no such information was available on the GSPCB's website at the relevant time.

The GSPCB's Position

The GSPCB filed three reply affidavits. It raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was time-barred. On the merits, it described the monitoring arrangements in detail: four Data Logging Sound Level Meters of Type 1 precision grade were installed at the site from 27 December 2022, and one Real Time Noise Monitoring Station was also set up, with data directly accessible at the Board's office.

The Board stated that on 28 and 29 December 2022, the appellant had not installed the Online Monitoring System, the display board, or the noise limiters as required under the Noise Action Plan. A PIL Writ Petition (No. 15 of 2023) was filed before the Bombay High Court at Goa during the event. The High Court passed an interim order on 30 December 2022 directing the Board and police authorities to ensure compliance, and specifically directing that if the online noise monitoring system was not connected to the Board's server, the event venue was to be shut down.

The GSPCB's most significant submission was that the Bombay High Court at Goa, by its judgment dated 15 December 2023 in PIL Writ Petition No. 15 of 2023, had extensively examined the conduct of the Sunburn Festival in December 2022. The High Court allowed that petition, declared the permissions issued to the appellant illegal, quashed them, and returned a definite finding that noise levels during the festival exceeded permissible limits. The High Court also specifically rejected the Section 11 argument, observing that the samples were taken using sophisticated monitoring instruments in the presence of the appellant's representative, and that the Section 11 procedure may not even apply to the situation at hand.

The Legal Question

The central question before the Tribunal was whether the GSPCB's direction of 6 April 2023 forfeiting the Rs 10 lakh security deposit should be upheld or set aside.

The appellant's primary legal argument rested on Section 11 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 — that the noise samples were collected without the mandatory prior notice, without the occupier's presence, and without joint signing and sealing, making the Inspection Report inadmissible. The appellant also pressed the argument that background noise from the surrounding tourist area had not been isolated from event-generated noise, and that the 8-hour monitoring window fell short of the 16-hour requirement under the Goa Noise Action Plan.

The GSPCB's answer was that the Bombay High Court had already addressed and rejected each of these contentions in its judgment of 15 December 2023, and that the NGT could not re-examine findings already returned by the High Court.

How the Tribunal Reasoned

The Bench declined to accept the appellant's Section 11 argument. It noted that the Bombay High Court had given clear findings after thorough consideration, including a specific rejection of the Section 11 admissibility plea. The High Court had observed that the monitoring was conducted using sophisticated scientific instruments, that the reports inspired full confidence, and that the Section 11 procedure may not apply to the situation at hand.

The Tribunal held that it could not sit in judgment over orders passed by the High Court where a clear finding had already been returned against the appellant.

On the security deposit, the Bench examined the GSPCB's letter dated 26 December 2022 — placed before it at page 531 of the paper book — which required the Rs 10 lakh deposit as a condition for processing the appellant's application. The letter made plain that the deposit was taken so that it could be forfeited in the event of any breach of law. Given the High Court's finding that the appellant had exceeded noise limits and that its permissions had been cancelled, the Tribunal found that forfeiture of the Rs 10 lakh deposit did not appear to be an illegal order and did not suffer from any infirmity.

Outcome

The Tribunal dismissed Appeal No. 27 of 2023 (WZ) and upheld the GSPCB's direction dated 6 April 2023 forfeiting the security deposit of Rs 10,00,000. There was no order as to costs. The judgment was pronounced on 2 June 2026, having been reserved on 15 April 2026.