Partly allowed

Rina Rout v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC6 Jul 2018WP(C)/12908/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Deputy Director, Agriculture, to release a capital investment subsidy for a broiler farm unit after the petitioner complies with the State Pollution Control Board's suggestions within six months, following which the subsidy for 4000 birds must be released within fifteen days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to comply with Pollution Control Board suggestions within six months; Deputy Director to release subsidy for 4000 birds within fifteen days of compliance.

Rina Rout Vs State of Orissa — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.12908 of 2016

¶2

06.07.2018 This is the 2^nd journey of the petitioner to this Court. Her application bearing W.P.(C) No.7278/2016 was disposed of on 16.05.2016 giving a direction to the opposite party no.2 i.e. Deputy Director, Agriculture, Jajpur to consider and dispose of the representation of the present petition within six weeks. Her application having not been disposed of has led to the filing of this writ application. The petitioner prays for a direction to release subsidy for the broiler farm unit.

¶3

The petitioner stated to be an educated unemployed woman desired to carry out a Commercial Broiler Project in self employment scheme under the State Agriculture Policy, 1996 read with the Codal Procedure of Agricultural Policy, 2008. For the said purpose, the petitioner applied to the opposite party no.5 i.e. District Agriculture Officer, Jajpur. Opposite party no.6 i.e. Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Jajpur submitted a feasibility report on 01.05.2012. Thereafter, the opposite party no.5 informed the petitioner in the letter dated 20.06.2012 i.e. Annexure-2 that her project has been approved and she was given a go-ahead with the establishment of the project. She was further advised to submit required document along with completion certificate and vouchers for release of subsidy. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted the documents to the opposite party with completion certificate and requested for release of subsidy. It is the case of the petitioner that the release of subsidy was so badly delayed she made representation further on 16.03.2016 for early release of the subsidy.

¶4

At this juncture, a person was not pulling on well with the petitioner lodged a complaint before the opposite party

¶5

¶6

objecting to the running of the project on the ground of environmental pollution. Hence, subsidy was not released due to such complaint. She approached this Court as described earlier in W.P.(C) No.7278/2016, which was disposed of on 16.05.2016 giving direction to the opposite party no.2 to consider her representation. Pursuant to such direction, the petitioner requested opposite party no.2 to dispose of her representation. But, instead of complying with the direction given by this Court, the opposite party no.2 wrote to the State Pollution Control Board (for short the Board) on 21.06.2016 for enquiry of the complaint. The Board submitted its report i.e. Annexure-C to the rejoinder of the petitioner with the observation that the Green Belt around the project acts as fence and drainage with settling pit provision, burial pit for disposal of litter, feather, dead chicks are already there and other suggestions has been given. It is claimed by the petitioner that she has already complied the said suggestion of the Board. The Board further opined that the project of the petitioner does not come within the purview of State Pollution Control Board and sitting criteria framed in the guidelines may not be applicable to the project. The petitioner further claims that her eligibility for capital investment subsidy and its release is clear from clause 4.3 of the Rules for sanction and disbursement of capital investment subsidy under the Agriculture Policy, 1996 and in such capital investment subsidy, the cost of preparation of feasibility will also be treated as capital investment.

¶7

The opposite party no.2 has filed a counter affidavit. The paragraphs 5, 6, 10, 11 and 12 of the counter affidavit are relevant. The specific case of the opposite party no.2 representing

¶8

¶9

the State functionary is that a go-ahead order was issued by the District Agriculture Officer (D.A.O.), Dharmasala to establish a broiler farm with the capacity of 6000 birds having project cost of Rs.14,50,000/- basing on the feasibility report and project proposal given by the Chief District Veterinary Officer, Jajpur vide letter dated 17.05.2012. The feasibility report was given by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Barachana and the project proposal was forwarded by the Chief District Veterinary Officer, Jajpur. The D.A.O., Dharmasala in the go-ahead letter requested the petitioner to complete the project within three month from the date of issue of the go-ahead order and to submit the required documents including the vouchers etc bearing TIN/SRIN number for availability of subsidy after necessary approval from the District Level Committee and final submission to APICOL. It is the specific case of the opposite party that till date, the petitioner has not submitted the documents by APICOL as per check list for the commercial agri-enterprises project.

¶10

The opposite party no.2 further pleads that during the month of September, 2012, the present petitioner informed the DAO, Dharmasala that she has completed a poultry shed of an area of 3000 sq.ft. But, as per the Government norms for rearing 6000 birds, the shed area should be 6000 sq.ft. and minimum shed area is 4000 sq.ft., which was not constructed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was advised to complete the shed. But, the petitioner had taken time to complete the poultry shed and submit the required documents for taking action by the DAO, Dharmasala. Meanwhile, Government stopped off-line submission of papers under the scheme w.e.f. 31.03.2014 and the on-line has

¶11

¶12

already been adopted from 01.04.2014. Instruction was received to submit the subsidy proposal within 15.01.2015 in view of the fact that some of the entrepreneurs could not submit their documents and vouchers. The DAO requested the authority to extend the time period vide letter dated 10.03.2015.

¶13

Then, on the complaint of one of the neighbour of the petitioner regarding severe pollution caused by the poultry farm of the petitioner, while considering the representation of the petitioner, the Chief District Veterinary Officer, Jajpur advised that the Regional Officer, State Pollution Control Board, Jajpur should be requested to make an enquiry. In pursuance of such request, the Board has visited the farm of the petitioner and the enquiry report was received by the opposite party no.2 on 25.10.2016 in which the Board has given its suggestion keeping in view of the factors to construct high rising boundary wall, complete drainage system with the settling pit provision, deep burial pit nearby area for disposal of the litter, feather, dead chicks and proper sanitation of the premises to control the foul smell etc. The report of the Board is Annexure G/2. It is the case of the opposite party that the petitioner has not taken any steps in pursuance of the report of the Board. The case of the petitioner has not taken into consideration regarding sanction of subsidy amount. Therefore, on such reply, the opposite party no.2 prays to dismiss the writ application. In her rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has claimed that the enquiry report of the Board reveals that Green Belt around the project acts as fence and drainage with settling pit provision, burial pit for disposal of litter-feather, dead chicks are already there and the petitioner shall take other steps to develop such facility as and when required and in such view, the suggestion of the Board has

¶14

¶15

been complied with.

¶16

The Board has submitted its report i.e. Annexure-G/2. The final conclusion of the Board is very relevant for the purpose and for better appreciation, the same is quoted below:

¶17

“ CONCLUSION-

¶18

1. The unit has been established much before the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) guidelines implemented for Poultry Farm and Hatchery unit. The guideline has been effective from 20.10.2015, wherein, for litter management, Control of Flies, Odour management, Good housekeeping, Siting Criteria (For new Poultry unit) and Administrative mechanism has been incorporated in the rule.

¶19

1. As the unit is handling very less capacity of Birds (i.e. 4000 birds at a time), it is not coming under the purview of State pollution control Board.

¶20

1. Again the siting criteria framed in the guidelines may not be applicable to the unit which has already been established and operated as much before the implementation of guidelines (i.e. date of communication by the CPCB)

¶21

1. However, the residential building and drinking water sources, i.e. Bore well as well as Dug wells exist within 50 meter radius of the unit.

¶22

In view of above facts, the unit may be directed to develop the facilities viz.-Complete construction of high rising boundary wall, Complete drainage system with settling pit provision, deep burial pit in nearby area for disposal of litter, feather, dead chicks and proper sanitation of the premises to control the foul smell etc.”

¶23

From the aforesaid factual aspect, it is apparent that the petitioner is entitled to subsidy for rearing 4000 birds as she has constructed a facility to a house of 4000 birds. Secondly, as per the provision of clause 4.3 of the Rules for sanction and

¶24

¶25

disbursement of capital investment subsidy under Agriculture Policy, 1996, the cost of preparation of feasibility report will be treated as capital investment subsidy and part of the cost of the project. Thirdly, though the Pollution Control Board has mentioned in its report that the rules framed in the year, 2015 is not applicable and environment being life line of leading life with dignity, the petitioner shall only be entitled to subsidy after completion of high rising boundary wall with settling pit provision, deep burial pit in the area nearby for disposal of litter, feather, dead chicks and other sanitation of the premises to control the foul smell etc.

¶26

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of giving direction to the petitioner to comply the directions/observation of the Board within six months hence. After completing the entire suggestions given by the Pollution Control Board in Annexure-G/2, she shall submit the representation before the opposite party no.2 and the subsidy for 4000 birds be released in favour of the petitioner within fifteen days of compliance of such directions. There shall be no orders as to the costs.

¶27

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per

¶28

rules.

¶29

……………………. S.K. Mishra, J.

¶30

¶31

Interim Application No.7377 of 2018

¶32

17.05.2018

¶33

Issue notice as above. Accept one set of process fee. In the interim, the parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to possession as on today till the next date. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per

¶34

¶35

rules.

¶36

…………………… S.K. Mishra, J.

¶37

pcd

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C) No.9126 of 2015

¶40

26.02.2016

¶41

Heard in part.

¶42

Because of non-production of the document, the matter could not be taken up for further hearing.

¶43

Hence, list it on 04.03.2016.

¶44

Interim order dated 11.05.2015 is extended till the next

¶45

date.

¶46

A free copy of this order be handed over to Miss.Sabitri Ratho, learned Addl. Government Advocate for compliance.

¶47

……………………

¶48

S.K. Mishra, J.

Rina Rout v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rina Rout v. State of Orissa

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

Pravati Swain Vs State of Orissa

Karunakar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Satyajeet Das@Simpu Vs State of Odisha

Kanakalata Dash Vs Rajendra K.Panigrahi

Abdul Khayyum Vs Union of India

M/S.Kcs Pvt.Ltd Vs Rosy Enterprises,Rourkels