Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, V.SIVAGNANAM, JJ.
Shraddha Dairy Farms Represented by its Partner, Badri Kasturi -Petitioner
Vs
Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board, Represented by Chairman -Respondents
W.P.No.24543 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.25848 of 2021
Decided on : 03-12-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 31A - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 - Section 33A - Challenging the proceedings - Cattle shed in residential area is causing health hazard to near-by public - Petitioner/Dairy Farm is functioning in present place from July 1999 - Petitioner received two show cause notices from the second respondent - One notice under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1974 and the other notice under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Notice was issued on a complaint made - Supreme Court deprecated the practice of entertaining writ petitions under Article 226, of the Constitution of India though suitable alternative remedy is available in law. (Para 11).
Finding of the Court: Where the statute itself provided the petitioners with an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the Prescribed Authority, a second appeal to the Tribunal and thereafter to have case stated to High Court, it was not for the High Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution ignoring as it were, the complete statutory machinery - That it has become necessary, even now, for us to repeat this admonition is indeed a matter of tragic concern to us - Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures - It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situation, as for instance where the very vires of statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution - But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass alternative remedy provided by statute - Surely matters involving revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters - Court can also take judicial notice of fact that vast majority of petitions under Article 226 of Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other - Practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
1. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings No. TNPCB/T2/F.15048/MMN/OS/Closure/W&A/2021 dated 17.08.2021 under Section 33A of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, as amended and under Section 31A of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, issued by the first respondent/Tamilnadu Pollution Control Act represented by the Chairman.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/Dairy Farm is functioning in the present place from July 1999. It has presently 72 cows. On 23.06.2021, the petitioner received two show cause notices from the second respondent. One notice under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1974 and the other notice under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Notice was issued on a complaint made by Thiru. Mukund Ramesh alleging that cattle shed in the residential area is causing health hazard to near-by public. In the notice issued under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 the following allegations were made:
2.The wastewater generated from the unit is discharged into the storm water drain.
3. The unit was operating without the consent of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.''
In another notice issued under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 the following allegations are made:
2.The unit is operating without the consent of the board.''
For the above said two notices, the petitioner issued reply on 13.07.2021.The first respondent, without any further enquiry or personal hearing, passed the impugned order directing closure of the Farm and also for disconnection of power supply, pursuant to above said proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Dairy Farm contended that the petitioner invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the impugned order was passed by the first respondent without any jurisdiction. The respondents have no jurisdiction over the allegations made against the petitioner. The first respondent has jurisdiction relating to Water Pollution and he had no jurisdiction with regard to the location of Farm in the residential area. The restriction under Section 25 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 31(A) of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, cannot include the petitioner’s case. The petitioner did not discharge sewage in any water body. The petitioner/ Dairy Farm was established in July 1999 before the issuance of guidelines for environmental management of Dairy Farms and Gaushalas. It was formed and notified by the Central Pollution Control Board in July 2020 and revised guidelines at July 2021.
3. The petitioner maintained the house as prescribed by the guidelines of the Government for disposal and treatment of cow dung. They had an arrangement with M/s. Srinivas Waste Management Services Private Limited, situated at Saligramam, Chennai. They collected cow dung in a proper and safer manner without causing any health and environmental hazard, besides the cow urine also was duly treated for various purposes, like natural pesticides and Hortic Culture projects. As per the guidelines for environmental management of Dairy Farms and Gaushala, the siting criteria is applicable for a new establishment, after the publication of the guidelines not for the petitioner. Further, the petitioner already submitted letter on 27.01.2021 seeking consent from the Pollution Board and is pending before the Pollution Board.
4. We have considered the matter in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record.
5. A perusal of the materials on record, indicates that complaint was received from Thiru.Mukundh Ramesh, dated 16.06.2021. Based on the complaint the sight in question was investigated by the Officials o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
