WP/21345/2004 of Arigella Subramanyeswara Rao, Vs Gram Panchayat, Nadipoodi Village, on 27 December 2004

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel forthe respondent-Gram Panchayat.

The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is that he claims to have run broilerhen business in the renovated cattle shed erected in his coconut garden, which is200 metres away from Kumarnagar village under respondent-Gram Panchayat. Hestates that the respondent issued notices dated 25-9-2004 and 07-11-2004informing him to obtain permission/licence from the authorities concerned for startingpoultry farm business and for making constructions therefor. He also states thatinasmuch as cattle sheds require no licence and the Gram Panchayat did not notifythat broiler hen business requires licence, there is no need to obtain any licence forthe business in question from the authorities, and accordingly he issued replynotices dated 30-9-2004 and 09-11-2004. Assailing the impugned action of therespondent in asking him to obtain permission from the authorities to conduct thebusiness, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

Disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition, the respondent filed counter. Reiterating the counter averments, the learnedStanding Counsel for the respondent-Gram Panchayat submitted that the inhabitantsof Kumarnagar of Nadipudi by their representation dated 23-09-2004, requested therespondent not to allow the petitioner to establish poultry farm, which is at a distanceof 100 yards from their residential houses, since the same will pollute theenvironment and cause health hazards to them. Thereupon, a notice dated 25-09-2004 was issued to the petitioner to obtain necessary permission in this regard. The petitioner by his reply dated 30-09-2004 requested to grant him permission to rearbroiler hens by the side of his cattle shed. Thereupon, the Gram Panchayat by itsresolution dated

Arguments

03-10-2004 asked the opinions of the Medical and Health Officer, Primary HealthCentre, Bandarulanka and Pollution Control Board, East Godavari Kakinada aboutthe poultry farm in the area. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 28-10-2004instructing him to stop establishing poultry farm till permission from Medical Officer isreceived, but the petitioner refused to receive the same. Since the petitioner has nottaken permission/licence as contemplated under Sections 121 and 127 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short “the Act”), another notice dated 08-11-2004 wasissued directing the petitioner to remove the construction for establishment of poultryfarm and having received it, he replied with untenable allegations. He alsosubmitted that the Medical and Health Officer inspected the area and found that theresidential houses of Kumarnagar are below 30 to 100 metres from the poultry farm,and as per the Rules a poultry farm shall be constructed at least at a distance of onekilometre from the residential houses, and if it is within the said distance, noobjection certificate should be obtained from the residents who are residing withinthe radius of one kilometer, and the District Medical and Health Officer, Kakinada inhis letter dated 09-11-2004 informed that the petitioner cannot be allowed toestablish poultry farm in the area, for it is injurious to the health of the public.Thereupon a final notice on 19-11-2004 was also issued directing the petitioner to remove the poultry farm, butthe petitioner refused to receive the notice, and thereupon, the Gram Panchayat byits resolution dated 20-11-2004 resolved to remove the poultry farm of the petitioner,and thereafter the Gram panchayat received caveat petition filed by the petitioner onthe file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

The learned counsel for the respondent-Gram Panchayat further submitted that theresidents of Kumarnagar issued a telegram dated 05-11-2004 to the Gram Panchayat stating that the petitioner constructed big shedand put about 1000 chicks and proposed to construct another shed to put morechicks, and requested to remove the same. The petitioner also issued a notice dated26-11-2004 stating that he has not established poultry farm and the chicks he isrearing, are less than 10,000 in number, no licence need be obtained. To theallegation of the petitioner that no notification was issued by the Gram Panchayatunder Section 119 of the Act notifying that broiler hen business requires licence, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a general notification was issuedas per the provisions of Section 119 of the Act and though it is not specificallymentioned in it about the broiler hens business, any act or trade or business which isinjurious to the health of general public, requires prior permission of the GramPanchayat, for it is the duty of the Gram Panchayat to maintain hygienic conditionsfor public safety. He further submitted that by suppressing the facts, the petitionerobtained status quo orders and in violation of the status quo orders, he startedconstruction of third shed. He states that the Gram Panchayat is proceeding as perRules and the petitioner being an Ex-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat is willfullyviolating the Rules. Thus, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

It is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner in the guise of renovating thecattle shed, is constructing a poultry farm, and as per the definition of the word“building” under Section 2(3) of the Act, building includes a house, out-house, shop,stable, latrine, shed (other than a cattle shed in an agricultural land), hut, wall andany other such structure whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or othermaterial whatsoever, and since the petitioner is constructing a shed for housing apoultry farm, he is bound to obtain permission from the Gram Panchayat as requiredunder Section 121 of the Act, and this apart, even after making the saidconstructions, he cannot run a poultry farm, unless he obtains licences andpermission from the Gram Panchayat as required under Section 127 of the Act, andother authorities. Since the petitioner himself has admitted that he had not obtainedpermission for construction of the shed and for running a poultry farm therein, nofault can be found with the action of the respondent in requiring the petitioner toobtain the required permission.

Further, the contention of the petitioner that no notification was issued by theGram Panchayat under Section 119 of the Act notifying that broiler hen businessrequires licence, and therefore, there is no need to obtain licence for running boilerhen business within the limits of the Gram Panchat, cannot be accepted for thereason that a general notification is said to have been issued by the respondent-Gram Panchayat as per the provisions of Section 119 of the Act stating that any actor trade or business which is injurious to the health of general public, requires priorpermission of the Gram Panchayat, which is a Body to safeguard the health of thepublic, and this apart, it is stated that the Medical and Health Officer certified that thepoultry farm being run by the petitioner is injurious to the health of the public.

Be that as it may, considering the fact that already the petitioner has startedconstructing the shed for the purpose of broiler hen business without obtainingpermission/licence from the respondent, it is appropriate to dispose of the writpetition with the following directions:

The petitioner is directed to file an application before the respondent-GramPanchayat seeking permission for construction of building/shed, and on such filing,the respondent-Gram Panchayat shall consider the same and pass appropriateorders thereon in accordance with law, and if such permission is granted, aftercompletion of the construction, the petitioner may file an application seekinglicence/permission for running the broiler hen business in the said shed, and if anysuch application is filed, the respondent is at liberty to consider the same and passappropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. Unless the petitioner obtains thepermissions/licences as directed above, he shall not make any constructions norcarry on any business.

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage ofadmission.

______________

N.V. RAMANA, J

Date: 27-12-2004

Svv/Ksr

1 The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Nadipoodi Village, Amalapuram Mandal, EastGodavari District.Godavari District.

2 Two C.D.copies.