Papayapalem Gram Panchayat Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.29774 OF 2010

¶4

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

¶5

The Papayapalem Grama Panchayat represented by its Sarpanch initially filed Writ Petition seeking mandamus declaring the action of the respondents proposing to establish a garbage dump yard by the fourth respondent namely Chirala Municipality – in the land comprising of Survey Nos.425 and 425/1 of Kothapeta Village of Vetapalem Mandal, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Subsequently, the petitioner filed application being WPMP.No.9511 of 2012 for amending the prayer assailing authorisation granted by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) (the fifth respondent herein) on 25.10.2011.

¶6

The admitted fact of the matter, as culled out from the pleadings, in brief, is as follows. The Kothapeta Revenue Village and Papayapalem Grama Panchayat are situated near Chirala Municipality. The revenue authorities found that land admeasuring Acs.15.60 cents in Survey No.425/3A to 3P and land admeasuring Acs.8.05 cents in Survey No.425/1 of Kothapeta Village was in possession of persons, who are not original assignees. The Tahsildar resumed the land. It was handed over the land to Kothapeta Village of Vetapalem Mandal. The District Collector, on the request made by the Commissioner of Municipality, directed to select a suitable site to establish municipal solid wastes (MSW) dumping yard. The Akkayapalem Gram Panchayat passed resolution to hand over the said site to the Government. Thereafter, as per the orders of the District Collector, the possession of the land admeasuring Acs.15.60 cents in Survey

¶7

No.425/3A to 3P of Kothapata Village was handed over to the Commissioner of Municipality and the balance land was kept for future needs. The land indisputably does not fall within the territorial limits of Papayapalem and it falls within the territory of Akkayapalem Gram Panchayat, which passed unanimous resolution for using the land as MSW dumping yard. The said municipality spread over 13.30 square km and has population of 84,990. An amount of Rs.63.81 crores was sanctioned under UIDSMT Scheme.

¶8

The counsel for the petitioner and the Special Assistant Government Pleader for Municipality and the Standing Counsel for APPCB made their submissions. According to them, the permission is granted for compost yard and therefore, it is not objectionable. They also contend that the compost yard proposed to be established does not result air and water pollution.

¶9

The Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (hereafter, the MSW Rules or the Rules), framed by the Central Government under Sections 3, 6 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1996, apply to every municipal authority responsible for collection, segregation, storage, transportation, processing and disposal of solid wastes. Rule 3(xv) of the MSW Rules contains a wider definition of “municipal solid wastes”. It includes all the commercial and residential wastes generated in a municipal or notified areas in either solid or semi-solid form excluding industrial hazardous wastes but including treated bio-medical wastes. The definition being an inclusive one, it has to be given wide meaning. Hence, any submission that in establishment of compost yard required specifications need not be strictly adhered to, it has to be rejected.

¶10

The fourth respondent has duty to manage municipal sold

¶11

wastes in accordance with Rule 7 read with Schedule II. Rules 6 and 7(2) read with Schedule III prescribe specifications for landfill sites. Para-8 of Schedule III prohibits the landfill from being established either near habitation clusters, forest areas, water bodies, monuments, National Parks, Wetlands and places of important cultural, historical or religious interest. The “landfill area” means the disposal of residual solid wastes on land in a facility designed with protective measures against air, water and land pollution. The question of landfill in the management of solid wastes is the last stage. The MSW, which are non-biodegradable, inert and not suitable either for recycling or for biological processing, can only be sent to landfill. It does not, however, mean that before, during the process of segregation or after being sent to landfill, it ceases to be a municipal sold waste. Therefore, reading Rules 4, 6, 7 and Schedule III together, we are convinced that establishment of MSW compost yard must adhere to the specifications in Schedule III.

¶12

The Environmental Engineer submitted a report to the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, APPCB. The relevant portion reads as below.

¶13

“The proposed dump site located at Sy.No.425, 425/1 of Kothapeta (V), Vetapalem (M), Prakasam District was inspected on 15.12.2010. During the inspection, Sri Puli Venkateswarlu, Sarpanch of Papayapalem Gram Panchayat and villagers of Ramapuram were contacted and they informed that due to the proposed dump site at the said location the health of the villages, cattle etc., may get affected. They have an apprehension of smell and fly nuisance and ground water contamination because of the dump site. The authorities of Chirala Municipality were also contacted during the inspection and they informed that they would take all the required preventive measures.

¶14

The proposed dump site is surrounded by agriculture land in Northern Side, vacant land followed by Bay of Bengal in Eastern side, casurina plantation followed by vacant lands in Southern side and agriculture lands in Western side. The nearest habitation from the proposed site is Ramapuram (V)

¶15

at about 320 mtrs. and Papayapalem (V) is about 1.0 km. from the proposed site in Northern side. Rahul B-Pharmacy College is at about 2 kms. and Chirala Engineering College is about 1.0 km from the proposed site. The Sea is existing at about 700 mtrs from the proposed site in Eastern side. The proposed site is having sandy soil.”

¶16

The factual position brought out by the Environmental Engineer after due inspection would show that the proposed site is situated nearer to human habitation, agricultural lands, Engineering College etc., and it would not be therefore congenial from the point of view of healthy environment to permit such facility. Further, the Chirala Municipality or the APPCB have not kept in view the various binding guidelines in MSW Rules. In the result, we set aside the authorisation and direct the APPCB to reconsider the matter after giving notice to the local bodies i.e., Gram Panchayats situated near the proposed side of Kothapeta Village.

¶17

The Writ Petition, with the above observations, stands disposed of without any order as to costs. WPMP.No.37939 of 2010 shall also stand disposed of.

¶18

_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶19

_________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶20

26^th March 2012 RRB

Papayapalem Gram Panchayat v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Papayapalem Gram Panchayat v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Mr. M. Pradyumma Vs Mr. Tabassum Saleem

Dr.Bandi Ashok Kumar, Vs H.D.F.C. Bank Limited, rep.by its Authorized Officer

M.Balakrishna Rao, Vs Shriram Chit Fund (P) Ltd.

Sunitha Krishnan Hyderabad Vs Govt of Ap. Chief Secretary and 12 Others

The State of a.P., rep.by Tahsildar, Vs M/s.Sree Panchamurty Co-op House Building Society Ltd.

Buchipudi Naveen Kumar Reddy Vs The State Bank of Hyderabad