Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 849

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL KOLKATA (EASTERN ZONE BENCH)
Sudhir Agarwal, J, Arun Kumar Verma, ACJ
Milan Kunda and Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondent
Original Application No. 129/2024/EZ | Earlier O.A. No.141/2024/PB

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Abhinaba Dan
For the Respondents: Mr. Krishnendu Bera, Mr. Ayush Kumar Dadhich

Environmental regulations exempt operations with fewer than 5000 birds from requiring a Consent to Operate, provided no significant pollution is demonstrated.

Headnote:(A) Environmental Laws - Guidelines for Poultry Farms - The poultry farm in question operates without adhering to siting criteria as per CPCB Notification and State regulations - The Tribunal constituted a Joint Committee to investigate complaints of pollution and nuisance caused by the poultry farm - The findings indicated that the unit does not qualify as a poultry farm under environmental regulations due to its capacity and operational nature. (Paras 2, 4, 11, 12)

(B) Consent to Operate - The unit’s capacity is below 5000 birds, thus exempting it from the requirement of Consent to Operate from the State Pollution Control Board as per existing guidelines - The Tribunal emphasized the importance of compliance with environmental norms but found no violations in this case. (Paras 5, 11)

Facts of the case:
The applicants, residents near a poultry farm, alleged pollution and health hazards due to the farm's operations. An inspection revealed the unit was a stock shed rather than a full-fledged poultry farm, with no significant environmental violations detected.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal concluded that the unit did not violate environmental laws as it did not meet the criteria for requiring a Consent to Operate, and no further orders were deemed necessary.

Issues: The main issues were whether the unit constituted a poultry farm under environmental regulations and if it was causing significant pollution.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal ruled that as the operational capacity was below the stipulated limit, the unit did not fall under the regulatory framework for poultry farms, thereby dismissing the complaints.

Result: OA is disposed of accordingly.

Table of Content
1. arguments presented by both parties regarding environmental compliance. (Para 1 , 10)
2. inspections revealed the operational nature of the unit and its implications. (Para 2 , 4)
3. court observations on the necessity of compliance with environmental norms. (Para 3 , 6 , 12)
4. capacity under 5000 birds exempts the unit from certain regulations. (Para 5 , 11)
5. final conclusion on the disposition of the application. (Para 14)

ORDER

1. This Original Application (hereinafter referred to as ‘OA’) was registered on a letter petition dated 07.09.2023 sent by Milan Kunda and others, taking cognizance thereof, in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha, (2022) 13 SCC 401.

2. The complainants have said that they are residents of Village and Post Office-Janta, Police Station-Bishnupur, District-Bankura, State of West Bengal. One Manik Kundu Sio Late Nimai Kundu is running a poultry farm in the village near Durga Mata Temple, Mansa Mata Temple and Aathchala (hollyshed where religious programs conducted). There is also a tube-well near the poultry farm. Poultry farm releases bad smell causing air and also causing soil and water pollution. The poultry farm is running without following siting criteria mentioned in Notification of Central Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPCB’) dated August 2021 and Memorandum dated 10.01.2022, Department of Environment, Govt. of West Bengal’s instruction on ‘Poultry Farm’ dated 18.07.2016 read with West Bengal State Pollution Control Board’s (hereinafter referred to as ‘WBSPCB’) Memorandum dated 27.01.2022.

3. Tribunal while taking cognizance of the matter on 22.04.2024, constituted a Joint Committee to verify factual position and take remedial action. The Committee was comprised of representatives of WBSPCB, District Veterinary Officer, Bankura (hereinafter referred to as ‘DVO, Bankura’) and District Magistrate, Bankura (hereinafter referred to as ‘DM, Bankura’).

4. Pursuant to order dated 22.04.2024, an inspection was conducted by Joint Committee and its Report is on record as annexure R-4 at page 45 along with the affidavit of DVO, Bankura (respondent 3). Report says that the unit under scrutiny is not a ‘poultry farm’ in true sense, but a stock shed with feeding arrangement for adult broiler birds only to be sold in live state, on wholesale basis, to chicken meat selling outlets. Hence, here, no rearing/raising of chicks upto adult stage is done. Stocking/storage capacity of the shed is much less than 5000 broiler birds at a time. Though, characteristic odour of broiler shed was felt within 15 metres of the shed under scrutiny whose size is 40 ft. (cid:215) 20 ft. but no littering outside the shed was seen to have been done by the unit. The entire observations and other relevant information given in the inspection Report read as under:

Observation	The unit under scrutiny is not a poultry farm in true sense, but is a stock shed with feeding arrangement for adult broiler birds only to be sold in live state, on wholesale basis, to chicken meat selling outlets. Here, no rearing/raising of chicks upto adult stage is done. The shed measures about 40’ x 20" in area with an asbestos roof and cement brick wall at one end and wire-netting on the other three sides for adequate ventilation. Saw-dust was seen to have been laid on the floor of the shed to absorb bird droppings. Stocking/storage capacity of the shed is much less than 5000 broiler birds at a time. During inspection, characteristic odour of broiler shed was felt within 15 metres of the shed under scrutiny. No littering outside the shed was seen to have been done by the unit. A tubewell exists within 10 metres of the north- east corner of the broiler shed. Residence of the main complainant Sri Milan Kundu lies on the west of the shed at a distance of about 125 metres away. The proprietor’s residence happens to be on the same side at much nearer distance of about 70 me

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 849

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL KOLKATA (EASTERN ZONE BENCH)Sudhir Agarwal, J, Arun Kumar Verma, ACJMilan Kunda and Ors. – AppellantVersusState of West Bengal & Ors. – RespondentOriginal Application No. 129/2024/EZ | Earlier O.A. No.141/2024/PB

Environmental regulations exempt operations with fewer than 5000 birds from requiring a Consent to Operate, provided no significant pollution is demonstrated.

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL KOLKATA (EASTERN ZONE BENCH)
Sudhir Agarwal, J, Arun Kumar Verma, ACJ
Milan Kunda and Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondent
Original Application No. 129/2024/EZ | Earlier O.A. No.141/2024/PB