Allowed

Aseem Naghman v. the Secretary, Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2021WP/13873/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition to quash a notice directing petitioners to stop poultry farm operations. The High Court held that under new Guidelines, consent from the State Pollution Control Board is mandatory for farms with 25,000 birds, directed the petitioners to apply for consent, and restrained demolition pending approval.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice was quashed; petitioners directed to apply for KSPCB consent; demolition restrained pending consent; expedited procedure for clearances ordered.

Aseem Naghman Vs the Secretary, Government of… — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.13873/2021 (LB-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

ASEEM NAGHMAN S/O NISAR AHAMAD AGED 42 YEARS R/O PENSION MOHALLA DUBAI NAGAR CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶7

NASEEMA BHANU W/O H M NISAR AHAMAD AGED 74 YEARS R/O PENSION MOHALLA DUBAI NAGAR CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶8

KHUTEZA NAZNEEN W/O ABDUL MAZEED, AGED 54 YEARS, R/O PENSION MOHALLA DUBAI NAGAR CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶9

SADHIYA TABASSUM W/O N.H. FIAZ, AGED 50 UEARS R/O PENSION MOHALLA DUBAI NAGAR CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶10

¶11

ARSHIYA TABASSUM, W/O N N JAMEEL AGED 48 YEARS R/O PENSION MOHALLA DUBAI NAGAR CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. ... PETITIONERS

¶12

[BY SRI. PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

THE PRESIDENT NARAYANAPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115.

¶16

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NARAYANAPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115.

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK, PANCHAYAT, NARAYANAPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115. ... RESPONDENTS

¶18

[BY SRI. K.R. NITYANANDA, A.G.A. FOR R1; SRI J.N. NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶19

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-J DATED 12.02.2021 PASSED BY THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NARAYANAPURA GRAMPANCHAYAT, BELUR TALUK AND HASSAN DISTRICT I.E., R-3 AND ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the final notice at Annexure-J dated 12.02.2021 issued by the Panchayat Development Officer, Narayanapura Grama Panchayat, Belur Taluk, Hassan District. The said notice directs that the petitioners should stall the operations of their poultry farm in the said premises.

¶24

Heard Sri Pramod. R, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.R.Nityananda, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri J.N.Naveen, learned counsel appearing for Sri A.Nagarajappa for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶25

Sans unnecessary details, the facts in brief are as

¶26

follows:-

¶27

¶28

The petitioners in the subject property are in the business of Poultry farming right from the year 2013 and claim to be in the said business after obtaining the General Licence from Zilla Panchayat, Hassan.

¶29

The present issue springs from a complaint being registered on 25.06.2020 to the Narayanapura Grama Panchayat with regard to the hazards caused by the petitioners' Poultry farm and the difficulties faced by the residents of the villages in the vicinity of Poultry farm. This also resulted in a complaint being registered with the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board ('KSPCB' for brevity) as well. The KSPCB, by its communication dated 10.09.2020, after inspecting the property and finding that 44,000 birds were existing in the said Poultry farm opined that, a Poultry farm having birds below one lakh, it would not come within the jurisdiction of KSPCB to regulate the activities of such Poultry farm. Notwithstanding the report of KSPCB, the impugned final notice is issued by Narayanapura Grama Panchayat, thus drives the petitioners to this Court in this petition.

¶30

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶32

submits that as on date, there are no birds in the Poultry farm due to onset of COVID-19 pandemic and the petitioners would bring in the birds to continue the Poultry farming activity only in accordance with the norms prescribed by KSPCB. He would emphasize on the fact that, on 10.09.2020 when KSPCB inspected the subject property, the norms were that KSPCB would have no jurisdiction on a farm if the strength of the birds is below one lakh and would therefore submit that the action of Narayanapura Grama Panchayat in issuing such final notice to the petitioners is contrary to law.

¶33

On the other hand, Narayanapura Grama Panchayat and the impleading applicant - complainant in unison would contend that the Guidelines/Norms for establishing a Poultry farm has changed in the light of the order dated 16.09.2020 passed by the National Green Tribunal. The Government has issued revised Guidelines which have come into effect from 01.01.2021. Clause 8.0 of the said Guidelines reads as follows:-

¶34

¶35

"8.0 Regulatory/Monitoring Mechanism for Poultry Farms

¶36

SPCBs/PCCs shall upload Environmental Guidelines on their website.

¶37

Guidelines shall be applicable to all the category of Poultry Farms.

¶38

Poultry Farms handling birds about 25,000 at single location will have to obtain consent to establish (CTE) and consent for operate (CTO) under the Water Act, 1974 & Air Act 1981 from State Pollution Control Board/Pollution Control Committee.

¶39

The Poultry Farms are categorized under "Green" Category, therefore validity of consent will be 15 yrs.

¶40

Animal Husbandry Department of the State/Districts to assist the poultry farms for implementation of Guidelines."

¶41

The afore-quoted clause clearly indicates that the Poultry farm handling birds of about 25,000 at a single location will have to establish taking consent from the KSPCB, the same goes with to operate as well, under the Water Act, 1974 & Air Act, 1981 from State Pollution Control Board/Pollution Control Committee. Therefore, the

¶42

¶43

petitioners if wanting, to now establish or re-establish the activity of Poultry farming, the consent of KSPCB is imperative. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to apply for consent to establish and continue their Poultry farm activity before KSPCB and it is after KSPCB clears the consent for such Poultry farm activity, Narayanapura Grama Panchayat would issue such licence as is needed in law for the petitioners to retain the said Poultry farm activity.

¶44

The petitioners, if apply for a nod from KSPCB within four weeks from today, the same shall be considered by the KSPCB within four weeks thereafter and appropriate orders be passed and if KSPCB gives consent for Poultry farming activity of the petitioners, Narayanapura Grama Panchayat shall accordingly issue the licence to the petitioners within four weeks thereafter.

¶45

The KSPCB while issuing their nod and Narayanapura Grama Panchayat while issuing the licence for such Poultry farming activity, the environmental hazards that are likely to be caused by such Poultry farming activity shall be taken note of and the petitioners shall undertake to

¶46

¶47

address them. Till such time, the Narayanapura Grama Panchayat is restrained from undertaking any demolition of property of the petitioners.

¶48

In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.Nos.1/2021 and 2/2021 do not survive for consideration.

¶49

The same are disposed of accordingly.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

VGR

Aseem Naghman v. the Secretary, Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aseem Naghman v. the Secretary, Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumari Swapna N Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Bk Panduranga Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Pattada Sri Guru Nanjeshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu Vs State of Karnataka by

Karnataka Police Employees House Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sachin N G Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Lokayukta Police Vs State Rep. by Secretary