Disposed

Kyram Narasimharao v. The District collector, East Godvari District

Telangana HC2 Mar 2012WP/1938/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging the sanction granted by the District Collector for constructing a slaughter house. The court held that the sanction was invalid as it was issued without obtaining necessary consent for establishment from the Pollution Control Board. Consequently, the court set aside the sanction and directed authorities to prevent the unit's operation.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned sanction/recommendation made by the fourth respondent and directed the APPCB to prevent the establishment of any slaughter house in the residential colony.

Kyram Narasimharao Vs The District collector… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.1938 OF 2011

¶5

02.03.2012

¶6

Between:

¶7

Kyram Narasimha Rao And others.

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

And

¶10

The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada, and others.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.1938 OF 2011

¶14

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶15

The petitioners are residents of Amalapuram. They filed the instant writ petition seeking invalidation of the proceedings of the fourth respondent in D.Dis.No.279/rhs/2010, dated 24.11.2010, whereby and whereunder the said Officer accorded sanction to Kamanagaruvu Gram Panchayat (fifth respondent) to grant permission under Section 120 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act, for brevity) to eighth respondent for construction of slaughter house sheds at R.S.No.548/13A of Kamanagaruvu village.

¶16

The petitioner’s case is that the eighth respondent obtained lease from one Krupanandam for a period of five years for running a slaughter house. He made an application to Gram Panchayat under Section 120 of the Act. The respondents of the locality raised objections complaining pollution of water in the canals and land surrounding the proposed site for slaughter house. In spite of the objections, the fourth respondent granted sanction.

¶17

This Court, while admitting the matter on 09.02.2012, passed the order in W.P.M.P.Nos.2376 and 2377 of 2011, which reads as under.

¶18

W.P.M.P.No.2376 of 2011 is filed seeking suspension of the proceedings of respondent No.4 in according permission by D.Dis.No.279/RHS/2010, dated 24.11.2010,

¶19

pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶20

W.P.M.P.No.2377 of 2011 is filed seeking a direction to restrain respondent No.8 from making further construction and starting any slaughtering activity in survey No.548/13A in Ac.0.30 cents of land in Kamanagaruvu Panchayat, Amalapuram, East Godavari District.

¶21

This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioners, Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB), and Sri K.Ratna Sai, representing Sri G.Satish Babu, Counsel for respondent No.8.

¶22

Five residents of Amalapuram Town, filed the writ petition aggrieved by the pollution caused by respondent No.8 in running a slaughter house. It appears, they applied to Gram Panchayat - respondent No.5 – under Section 120 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1994, to start a slaughter house in Kamanagaruvu Village of Amalapuram Town. The application was forwarded to the District Medical & Health Officer, Kakinada (DMO) – respondent No.4 – as required under the relevant rules. The said Officer by proceedings dated 24.11.2010 granted permission to respondent No.8. This is assailed in the writ petition.

¶23

At the stage of admission itself, respondent No.7 – Environmental Engineer, APPCB, Kakinada, filed counter affidavit revealing that respondent No.8 did not obtain the consent for establishment (CFE) a slaughter house, and that the Environmental Engineer addressed the Revenue Divisional Officer to initiate action under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶24

In view of the counter averments it is fairly established that respondent No.8 did not obtain CFE. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1, Environment, Science & Technology (Environment) Department, dated 23.01.1995, under Section 64 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, notifying 64 industries, and slaughter house or abattoir is one of the industries included in the list. Therefore, no person is entitled to commence a slaughter house without obtaining CFE from the APPCB. In the absence of any such clearance, Gram Panchayat cannot grant any permission even if the DMO has made a recommendation.

¶25

Therefore, there shall be a direction to respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 to take all necessary steps to prevent running/operating of the slaughter house by respondent No.8, if necessary, by taking help of the Police.

¶26

Counsel for respondent No.8 requests two weeks time for filing counter affidavit.

¶27

Post the W.P.M.Ps on 23.02.2012 for further orders. In the meanwhile, counter affidavits by the other respondents to be filed.

¶28

Subsequently, when the matter was listed before this Court

¶29

on 23.02.2012, this Court directed respondents 1 to 3 and 7 to take all necessary steps to prevent running/operating slaughter house by eighth respondent.

¶30

Today, the standing counsel for Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) (seventh respondent) filed the latest status report of the Environmental Engineer, Kakinada submitted to the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer (Legal), Hyderabad. The relevant portion thereof reads as under.

¶31

It is further submitted that this office has requested the Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram to direct the concerned officials to ensure not to carry any slaughtering activity in the premises of R.Sy.No.548/13A, 1^st ward of Kamanagaruvu Panchayat, Amalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District by M/s.The Bharathi Meat Process, Procuring and Sales Employees Industrial Cooperative Society Limited, to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, A.P., issued directions in W.P.M.P.No.2376 and 2377 of 2011 as the unit is not required power supply to operate the unit.

¶32

During inspection by the Board officials on 26.02.2012, it was observed that the slaughter house is not in operation and some bones were observed lying in the slaughtering area. During inspection, the nearby public has informed that for the last 10-15 days there is no commercial slaughtering activity in the about said premises and also informed that the nearby public opined that it is better to seize the premises to stop the activity permanently as there is scope for taking up slaughtering activity by M/s.the Bharathi Meat Process, Procuring and Sales Employees Industrial Cooperative Society Limited.

¶33

Hence, the office has already requested the RDO, Amalapuram to direct the concerned officials to see that not to do any slaughtering activity in the premises of R.Sy.No.548/13A, 1^st Ward of Kamanagaruvu Panchayat, Amalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District by M/s.the Bharathi Meat Process, Procuring and Sales Employees Industrial Cooperative Society Limited.

¶34

In view of the status report, we consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the APPCB to prevent establishment of any slaughter house in the residential colony, which has tendency to pollute air and water if not properly run. A

¶35

perusal of the impugned sanction issued by the fourth respondent shows that without referring the matter to the APPCB or obtaining any opinion, the fourth respondent permitted Gram Panchayat. In a matter like this, the fourth respondent ought to have obtained necessary guidelines from the APPCB which is a specialised body established to prevent and control pollution and safeguard the environment. For this reason, we set aside the impugned sanction/recommendation made by the fourth respondent.

¶36

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶37

_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶38

02.03.2012 pln

Kyram Narasimharao v. The District collector, East Godvari District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kyram Narasimharao v. The District collector, East Godvari District

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

Smt. T. Santha Kumari, Vs Indian Overseas Bank

M/s. Balaji Board Industries Vs The Ap. Pollution Control Appellate Authority

Urrikala Bethala Rao Vs The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, rep.by its

Chundi Tirupataiah Vs The Hon`ble Lokayukta of Andhra Pradesh, basheerbagh

Habeeb Mohammed Vs Smt. Aruna Sri M. Reddy

Prithvi Agro Tech Private Limited, rep.by its Managing Vs Bank Of India, rep.by its Zonal Manager