Court determines that substantial evidence and regulatory compliance justify the operation of a poultry farm despite neighboring complaints.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 from forbearing the unauthorized conducting the poultry farm of 3^rd respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the 3^rd respondent is conducting a poultry farm, without obtaining any proper license or approval. Further, he would submit that the 3^rd respondent is disposing the dead birds, belongs to their farm, by throwing it on the road and neighbouring fields. In this regard, he had produced a photograph of 5 dead birds thrown on the road. Hence, this petition

3. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent would submit that the 3^rd respondent had obtained all the certificate and necessary approvals from pollution control board for conducting the poultry farm.

4. Further, he would submit that upon receipt of the petitioner’s complaint, the 1^st and 2^nd respondents had conducted an inspection at the poultry farm and thereafter, disposed of the said complaint by stating that the 3^rd respondent's farm has been maintained in hygienic manner and also they had issue a notice to the 3^rd respondent to maintain the farm in the very same manner in future as well. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

6. In the case on hand, the petitioner's agricultural land is situated adjacent to the 3^rd respondent's farm. Naturally, the petitioner may have faced certain inconveniences due to the existence of said farm. Hence, he filed representations dated 02.05.2022 & 23.06.2022.

7. Upon considering the said representations, the 1^st and 2^nd respondent had conducted an inspection at the 3^rd respondent's farm and disposed of the same by stating that the 3^rd respondent is maintaining the farm in hygienic manner and a direction was also issued to the 3^rd respondent to maintain the farm in very same manner even in future as well. When such being the case, it is clear that the petitioner's grievance is duly addressed by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents.

8. As far as the allegation of throwing dead birds on the public roads is concerned, no poultry farm will involve in any such activities. In such case, it appears that the petitioner had created such fake photographs only for the purpose of filing the present petition against the 3^rd respondent. Therefore, this Court warns the petitioner not to do any such activities in future.

9. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present petition as devoid of merits. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.