2012 (5) ALT 631 (D.B.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
V.V.S. RAO and G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, JJ.
Rythu Seva Sangam, Yenamadurru, rep. by its President, Mr. Tirumala Venkata Ratnam
Vs.
Bhimavaram Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner and others
W.P. Nos.16701 of 2007, 32702 of 2010, 1635 and 34229 of 2011
Decided on: 5-7-2012
V.V.S. RAO, J.
INTRODUCTION
The residents living in villages, a short distance away to Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) filed these writ petitions complaining the negligent, illegal and unplanned method and manner of the disposal of Municipal Solid Wastes (MSWs) generated in municipal areas, be they corporations or municipalities. Their Plea is that the action taken or action proposed to be taken with the concurrence of the Andhra Pradesh Pol1ution Control Board (the Board, for brevity) contravenes the relevant statutes and the Rules made thereunder. The problem presented, in this batch of cases, appears to be in existence in village panchayats, municipal areas and metropolitan areas which are all subject to more or less the same law. Besides praying for enforcement of their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to a healthy environment, they seek a mandamus to the ULBs to discharge their duties in accordance with the law.
2. The delicate balance between two competing rights; right of individual to life with clean environment has to be given effect keeping in view the community interest which seeks to substantially curtail the individual right especially in the jurisprudence of municipal administration. The earlier view that the complicated issues involving the help of science and technology are subjected to limited judicial review no more holds good. The right to clean environment - air, water, land and surroundings - is a penumbral right without which the quality of life cannot be ensured under Article 21. Therefore whenever an issue of contravention of the laws intended to protect environment is brought before the Courts, it is the duty of the Courts to examine the issues in the light of the applicable law (Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal (1) (1987) 2 SCC 295 and Dhnnu Taluka Environment Project Group v. Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. (2).(1991) 2 SCC 539
Background facts
WRIT PETITION No.16701 of 2007
3. The petitioner - a registered society; seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of Bhimavaram Municipality (Bhimavaram, for brevity) in establishing MSW compost yard in the land admeasuring Acs.14.56 in S.No.318/3 of Yenamadurru village, of Bhimavaram Mandal in West Godavari District as illegal and for a consequential order directing the Board not to grant permission to the municipality.
4. The case set up by the petitioner is as follows. Invoking the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the LA Act), the Government notified village site for establishing compost yard in Yenamadurru village. Under emergency provisions, possession was also taken from the land owners. The land is proposed for establishment of the municipal compost yard for dumping garbage of 150 (M.T.) per day. The land is at a distance of 1 1/¬2 KMs from the village. On the western, northern and southern sides of the village site, there are irrigation channels for providing ayacut to Acs.300.00 of agricultural lands, water for fish/prawn tanks besides being source of drinking water. The establishment of compost yard would result in contamination of irrigation channels and hazardous to health of the villagers.
5. Yanamadurru Gram Panchayat in their affidavit supports the case of the petitioner. For ready reference, we extract hereunder the relevant paragraphs from Panchayat's affidavit.
I humbly submit that the population of the proposed 7th respondent Gram Panchayat is 6000 and the livelihood of the people of our Gram Panchayat is Agriculture and the lands in our Gram Panchayat are Canal irrigated fertile double Crop Wet Lands. I humbly submit that Bhimavaram Municipality proposed to establish a Municipal Solid Waste Compost Yard for Bhimavaram Municipality in an extent of Acs.15.56 in S.No.318/3 of our Gram Panchayat and in furtherance of the same the Revenue authorities, on the request of Bhimavaram Municipality, initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. ... ... I respectfully submit that there are irrigation
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal: (1987) 2 SCC 295. (Para 2)
Sumit vs Payyannur Municipality: 2004 (1) KLT 438. (Para 17)
Fertilizer & Chemicals Travancore Ltd v. Employees Association: (2004) 4 SCC 420. (Para 17)
Al Mitra H. Patel v. Union of India: (1998) 2 SCC 416 = AIR 1998 SC 993. (Para 30)
Dr. B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India: (1996) 2 SCC 594. (Para 31)
Sumit v. Payyannur Municipality: 2004 (1) KLT 438. (Para 34)
Lazarus Estate v. Berly: (1956) All.E.R. 341. (Para 46)
Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Brothers: (1992) 1 SCC 534 = AIR 1992 SC 1555. (Para 46)
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath: (1994) 1 1 SCC = AIR 1994 SC 853. (Para 46)
Public v. State of West Bengal: AIR 1993 Cal. 215. (Para 51)
Goa Foundation v. Diksha Holdings (P) Ltd : (2001) 2 SCC 97. (Para 52)
Live Oak Resort (P) Ltd v. Panchgani Hill Station Municipal Council: (2001) 8 SCC 329. (Para 52)
Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India: (1996) 5 SCC 281. (Para 52)
Dr. Ajay Singh Rawat v. Union of India: (1995) 3 SCC 266. (Para 53)
Hinch Lal Tiwari v Kamala Devi: (2001) 6 SCC 496 = AIR 2001 SC 3215. (Para 56)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.