Allowed

Mandapalli Papa Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC15 Mar 2012WP/4223/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held the proposed garbage dump yard at Chollangi village non-compliant with APPCB guidelines and MSW Rules. It directed the Corporation to find an alternate site and obtain necessary authorization before any disposal activity.

What did the court decide?

Directed Corporation to look for an alternate site to the Chollangi village and obtain authorization from APPCB before starting any site/yard for composting and disposal.

Mandapalli Papa Rao Vs The Government of Andhra… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2012)

¶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.4223 of 2011

¶4

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

¶5

The petitioners, who are eleven in number, filed the instant writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents – Government, revenue officials of the District, officials of Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) and Kakinada Municipal Corporation (KMC); in attempting to establish a garbage dump yard in an extent of Acs.27-66 cents comprised in Sy.No.303/2B etc., in Chollangi village of Tallarevu Mandal in East Godavari District, as violative of Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (for short ‘MSW Rules’) and the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 as well as the rules made thereunder.

¶6

The petitioners are residents of Chollangi and Chollangipet villages of Tallarevu Mandal. They claim to belong to socially and economically weaker sections of the society. The villagers eke out living by agriculture and prawn culture/pisi culture. They are utilizing flood water from Godavari and Tulyabaga Drain (salt creak) from the sea during high tide. Most of the people statedly engaged in fishing in the river/salt creak or in the fish tanks allotted by the A.P. Scheduled Castes Welfare Corporation.

¶7

It is the further case of the petitioners that the KMC, with a population of about a million, is using their site at Kondayyapalem as garbage dumping yard. They admitted that it is sufficient to serve the purpose for some more time. Though Chollangi Village is not located within their jurisdiction, the Corporation is making attempts to

¶8

establish a dump yard in contravention of Municipal Corporation Act. The petitioners would contend that under MSW Rules, it is the responsibility of the Corporation to collect, segregate and dispose off the solid wastes in accordance with the Rules which do not permit using the site situated outside their jurisdiction. They would also contend that the proposed dump yard is near to the fish tanks, agriculture lands and protected mangrove forest. In view of the fact that the Gram Panchayat passed resolutions on the representations made by the local M.L.A. to drop the proposals, the Corporation is going ahead with the establishment of dump yard.

¶9

The Commissioner has filed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition, highlighting the difficulties faced by the Corporation in procuring proper land for establishing compost yard. It is stated that the Corporation requires an extent of Acs.15.00 cents of land, but it has no land of its own within its limits. So as to establish the dump yard with modern technology having segregation unit, compost processing yard and place for disposal, the Corporation is making efforts since 1983. The State Government allotted an extent of Acs.11.00 cents of land at Panduru village for the purpose; in 2008 the Government again allotted Acs.29.00 cents at Turangi village, but the people living in the neighbourhood filed O.S.No.17 of 2010 on the file of the District Judge, Kakinada for permanent injunction and therefore the proposal could not be taken up, and therefore the Corporation requested the District Collector to allot the Government poramboke land in Chollangi village. The Commissioner would further submit that vide proceedings dated 28.1.2011 the Collector allotted the land and delivered advance possession on 29.1.2011. This land is situated at a distance of 7 k.m. away from National Highway No.214 and 5 k.m. away from the sea coast and 2 k.m. away from the residential houses in Chollangi and Chollangipeta villages. The land is suitable as per

¶10

the norms prescribed by APPCB and the Corporation is taking further steps for obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities. The Commissioner further submits that Kondayyapalem dump yard is low lying and it is not sufficient to establish modern dump yard. A reference is also made to the agreement entered into with M/s. Yuvaraj Power Plant for supply of garbage under ‘wastes to energy’ concept.

¶11

On 15.3.2011 this Court, while directing the APPCB to file a report, passed orders observing that establishment of MSW dump yard shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. In obedience to the order, the Environmental Engineer, Kakinada has sent a report vide letter dated 17.3.2011 addressed to the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer (Legal), APPCB. For ready reference, the salient aspects

¶12

brought out therein are extracted herein.

¶13

It is further submitted that Kakinada Municipal Corporation has not submitted any proposal or action plan for establishment of municipal solid waste scientific disposal facility so far. This office issued a notice to Kakinada Corporation to identify the suitable site duly meeting the Board citing guidelines for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste. As per the Board citing guidelines for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste, the site should be away from the habitation and water bodies. Copy of the guidelines is enclosed.

¶14

During inspection by the Board officials on 16.3.2011, it was observed that the proposed municipal solid waste dumping site of M/s Kakinada Municipal Corporation at Chollangi pet (v), Tallarevu (M), East Godavari district is not meeting the citing guidelines as the proposed site is located within 1 KM radius from the habitation of Chollangi peta and also located Gurukulapatasala.

¶15

At present, Kakinada Municipal Corporation dumping the solid waste nearby habitation/roads/water tanks in unscientific manner in municipal corporation area. This office has also issued notice to the Municipal Corporation to identify the suitable site for scientific disposal duly meeting the Board’s citing guidelines in response to the complaints received from the public and this office has not received any proposal or action plan for establishment of municipal solid waste scientific disposal facility so far.

¶16

The Counsel for the Petitioner, Standing Counsel for APPCB and KMC made their submissions.

¶17

We have perused the pleadings and report filed by the APPCB. As of now, the Kakinada Corporation is dumping solid wastes near habitation/roads/water tanks in unscientific manner in the Corporation area and APPCB also issued notice to them. In addition, as pointed out by the Environmental Engineer, the site at Chollangi village does not meet the site guidelines for establishment of place for disposal of garbage. It is also stated therein that so far KMC has not approached the APPCB for authorization/permission for establishment of MSW dump yard.

¶18

The KMC is a century old municipal body. It was upgraded as Corporation in 2005. Curiously, the Corporation which is expected to discharge the statutory obligations under the Municipal Corporation Act, is blissfully ignorant of their duty of the following MSW Rules. Rule 4 casts duty on the Corporation for development of infrastructure for collection, storage, segregation, transportation, processing and disposal of MSW. The Corporation is required to apply to the APPCB in Form No.1 and obtain authorization in Form No.3 [Rule 6(2) and (3)]. Any site located for the purpose of disposal, composting or landfill has to adhere to the specifications in Schedule-III of the Rules. The report of the Environmental Engineer extracted hereinabove clearly states that the site at Chollangi does not meet the site guidelines because of two reasons namely; the said site is located within 1 KM from the area of habitation of Chollangipeta and it is located near Gurukulapathasala. As the report is based on the personal inspection and observations made by the Environmental Engineer, it is conclusively proved that Chollangi site is not suitable for dump yard. In a case of this nature, when there is an opinion given by an expert like Environmental Engineer and there is a finding

¶19

that the proposed MSW dump yard does not meet the statutory specifications. We cannot permit the Corporation to implement its project as any such establishment of dump yard near habitation would result in deprivation of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, direct the Corporation to look for alternate site other than the site at Chollangi village, obtain authorization from the APPCB before starting any site/yard anywhere for the purpose of composting and disposal of MSW. We also observe that if there is any violation of the provisions of the Environmental (Protection) Act and the Rules made thereunder and/or MSW Rules, it shall be open to the Environmental Engineer to launch prosecution before appropriate jurisdictional criminal Court against the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration and the Commissioner of Kakinada Corporation.

¶20

The writ petition, with the above observations and directions, stands disposed of accordingly.

¶21

_____________ V.V.S.RAO, J ______________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 15-3-2012 DA

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.4223 of 2011

¶25

15.3.2012

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶27

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

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.4223 of 2011

¶29

Date: 15.3.2012

¶30

Between:

¶31

Mandapalli Papa Rao and others.

¶32

.. Petitioners

¶33

And

¶34

Government of A.P, represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶35

.. Respondents

Mandapalli Papa Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandapalli Papa Rao v. The Government 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

The State Bank of India., rep.by its Branch Manager Vs Ap State consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Aware Micro Finances Society, 40/447/25a 1st floor Vs The State Bank of India., rep.by its Authorized officer

Remella Chitti Babu Vs The Collector and District Magistrate

M. Ramidevi, Vs The Municipal Corporation of Nellore

Singampalli Srinivas Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Md. Nizamuddin, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh