Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1011

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: Abhinaba Dan
For the Respondents: Krishnendu Bera, Ayush Kumar Dadhich

The tribunal ruled that the unit did not qualify as a poultry farm under environmental regulations, thus not requiring consent to operate.

Headnote:(A) Environmental Protection Act - Guidelines for Poultry Farms - The Tribunal took cognizance of complaints regarding a poultry farm causing pollution and not following siting criteria as per CPCB guidelines. The inspection revealed the unit was not a poultry farm as defined, and no violations were established. (Paras 1, 4, 10, 12)

(B) Jurisdiction of Tribunal - The Tribunal emphasized that it cannot intervene without clear evidence of violations. The applicant failed to demonstrate specific breaches of regulations applicable to the respondent's operations. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The applicants alleged that a poultry farm operated by the respondent caused environmental pollution, violating siting criteria. The inspection report indicated that the unit did not meet the definition of a poultry farm and complied with relevant regulations.

Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence of violation of environmental laws and determined the unit did not require a consent to operate as it did not exceed the stipulated capacity.

Issues: The main issues were whether the unit constituted a poultry farm under environmental law and if it adhered to siting criteria.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the unit's operations did not fall under the ambit of poultry regulations, as it was not raising poultry but engaging in trading, thus not violating any laws.

Result: OA is disposed of accordingly.

Table of Content
1. complaint regarding environmental pollution from poultry farm. (Para 1 , 2)
2. inspection revealed unit's operations do not constitute a poultry farm. (Para 4 , 5 , 10)
3. no violations of environmental laws were established. (Para 11 , 12)
4. tribunal disposed of the application without further orders. (Para 13 , 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. he 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. 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 metres.
Other relevant information	During inspection, both Sri Manik Kundu (proprietor) and Sri Milan Kundu (chief

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. he 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. 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 metres.

Other relevant information

During inspection, both Sri Manik Kundu (proprietor) and Sri Milan Kundu (chief

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1011

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

The tribunal ruled that the unit did not qualify as a poultry farm under environmental regulations, thus not requiring consent to operate.

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