BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

APPLICATION No. 137 of 2014 (SZ)

In the matter of:

Shrimati Rajeswari W/o Ramamurthy Chinnakeesakuppam Village Melpadi Post Taluk …Applicant

AND

1) The District Collector Collector Office Sathuvachari, Vellore Vellore District

2) The Block Development Officer Block Development Office Taluk Vellore District

3) The District Environmental Engineer, Pollution Control Board, Auxilium College Road Gandhi Nagar Vellore 632 006

4) The Tahsildar Katpadi Taluk Vellore District

5) Shrimati Ambiga W/o Rajendiran Chinnakeesakuppam Village Melpadi Post Katpadi Taluk Vellore District

Page 1 of 17

6) Shrimati Mullai W/o Kannan Chinnakeesakuppam Village Melpadi Post Katpadi Taluk Vellore District … Respondents

Counsel appearing:

Applicant ... M/s. K.S.Viswanathan and V. Sudhakar, Advocates

Respondents ... M/s. Abdul Saleem, Vidhyalakshmi Advocates for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Shrimati Seethalakshmi, Advocate for Respondent No. 3; Shri M.K. Subramanian and M.R. Gokul Krishnan Advocates for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6; Shrimati H. Yasmeen Ali, Advocate for Respondent No. 7

ORDER

Present:

1. Hon’ble Justice Shri M. Chockalingam Judicial Member

2. Hon’ble Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran Expert Member

Dated, 05th August, 2015.

(Order delivered by the Bench)

1. Whether the judgement is allowed to be published on the internet. YES/NO

2. Whether the judgement is to be published in the All NGT Reporter. YES/NO

The applicant herein has filed this application seeking for directions to the respondents 1 to 4 to initiate action to close down the poultry farm run by respondents 5 & 6 without the consent of the concerned authorities required under law at Chinnakeesakukppam Village, Melpadi Panchayat,

Sholinghur Panchayat Union, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District.

Page 2 of 17

2. The facts of the case as seen from the averments of the application is that the applicant is the resident of Chinnakeesakuppam Village situated adjacent to the State Highways running from to Chitoor via

Melpadi in Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District. The village by its nature is well protected and unaffected by any environmental pollution. The 5th respondent and the 6th respondent herein started setting up a poultry farm in the village. The site chosen by the said persons was close to a thick residential locality and was hardly 50 feet away from Panchayat Union

Primary School. Unmindful of the objections of the villagers and without obtaining permission / consent from any of the authorities concerned they established the poultry farm. Since repeated attempts to persuade the 5th and 6th respondents to relocate the poultry farm to an unobjectionable locality failed, the villagers submitted a complaint on 02.09.2013 to the 1st respondent, District Collector, Vellore as well as 2nd and 3rd respondents requesting them to take immediate action to stop running of the poultry farm as there are serious health hazards associated with running of a poultry farm in close proximity to schools and residential areas.

3. By proceedings dated 20.09.2013, the third respondent herein informed the applicant that an inspection was conducted on 19.09.2013 through the 3rd respondent Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control

Board (TNPCB) and that it was found that the said poultry farm was being run without any consent from the TNPCB and at a distance of 500 m from the residential area and a primary school. The third respondent promised action against the 5th and 6th respondents in as much as serious health hazards were anticipated on account of filth created by bird excreta and dead birds. A show cause notice dated 20.09.2013 had also been issued to the 5th respondent herein by the third respondent calling upon her to show

Page 3 of 17

cause as to why action should not be taken against her under Section 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Air Act) and also issued directions for stoppage of electricity and water supply.

4. The 2nd respondent, namely, the Block Development Officer,

Sholinghur Panchayat Union has also replied to the complaint made by the applicant by his proceedings dated 27.09.2013 stating that the poultry farm has been established and is being run without any permission from the

Panchayat and orders have been issued directing the President, Melpadi

Panchayat to initiate immediate action against the Fifth respondent. On

04.12.2013, the Zonal Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department,

Vellore has also written to the Assistant Director of Panchayats, Vellore stating that there is a possibility of spread of Bird flu on account of location of a poultry farm in a residential area and other serious health hazards.

The Joint Director has further advised the local body to prevent location of the poultry farm at least at a distance of 1 km from the residential area and report on the action taken.

5. The 3rd respondent, TNPCB issued a further notice on 09.12.2013 to the 5th respondent stating that no reply has been received for their previous notice dated 20.09.2013. The notice further stated that more than 2000 numbers of chicken are being reared at the said poultry farm resulting in serious environmental pollution and health hazard in the area. The 2nd respondent herein has issued a further communication on 12.12.2013 pursuant to the applicant’s complaint to the Chief Minister’s Special Cell, to the President Melpadi Panchayat stating that the foul smell emanating from the poultry farm due to the discharge of excreta by the Chicken is unbearable and the students studying in the Panchayat Union Primary school which is very close to the poultry farm as well children and elders

Page 4 of 17

residing in the nearby area are susceptible to infectious diseases arising out of the same. The 2nd respondent has also directed the President, Melpadi

Panchayat to take immediate action to remove the poultry farm at least up to a distance of 1 km from the residential area and send action taken report.

6. In spite of all the above, however, none of the respondents have followed up the issue and taken action for removal of the poultry farm even though they have inspected the area many times and found that the poultry farms run by the 5th and 6th respondents are causing serious health hazards.

7. The 5th and 6th respondents are influential people and have been able to avoid penal action and closure of business by the TNPCB and other

Government authorities even though a number of notices as stated above have been issued to them to close the farm forthwith. The 5th and 6th respondents are running the poultry farm without adopting any safety precautions and in a crude manner in sheds letting out waste and contaminated water mixed with bird excreta which is highly infectious and harmful to health of the residents and particularly children studying in the

Panchayat Union Primary School located close to the farm.

8. The 2nd respondent, namely, the Block Development Officer,

Sholinghur Panchayat Union, would state in reply that the site chosen by the 5th and 6th respondents is close to a thick residential locality and is hardly 50 feet away from the Panchayat Union School. After the initial objections, the 5th and 6th respondents pretended to give up the idea of setting up the poultry farm. Thereafter, unmindful of the objections and without obtaining permission/consent from the concerned authorities, established the poultry farm. Based on the complaint preferred by the villagers on 02.09.2014 with the District Collector, Vellore, the 3rd

Page 5 of 17

respondent, namely, the District Environmental Engineer, (DEE) TNPCB deputed his Assistant Engineer (AE) for conducting an inspection on

19.09.2013 and as per the inspection report of the Assistant Engineer,

TNPCB, the said poultry farm was being run without any consent from the

TNPCB and situated at a distance of 500 m from the residential area and the Primary School. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice to the 5th respondent as to why action should not be taken for prosecution under Section 37 of the Air Act and issued directions for disconnection of power supply and water supply to the poultry farm.

9. The 2nd respondent also replied to the complaint made by the applicant on 27.09.2013 stating that the orders were issued directing the

President, Melpadi Panchayat to initiate action against the 5th respondent.

The 3rd respondent, TNPCB had also issued a further notice on 09.12.2013 to the 5th respondent stating that more than 2000 numbers of chicken are being reared at the said poultry farm causing environmental pollution and health hazard in the said area and after breeding the first batch of 2000 chickens, the said poultry farm should be shifted beyond 500 m away from the residential area. If the 5th respondent fails to shift the said farm within the prescribed time, necessary action will be taken under the provisions of

Section 37 of the Air Act.

10. Further, the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Vellore

Region had also instructed the 2nd respondent to prevent running of the poultry farm from the existing place and to remove the said poultry farm minimum 1 km away from the present location and also instructed to take appropriate action and to send an action taken report. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent instructed the President, Melpadi Village Panchayat who is the competent authority as per the provisions laid down in Tamil Nadu

Page 6 of 17

Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to prevent any health hazards, pollution and any other nuisance which will affect the general public and children who are residing at Melpadi Village Panchayat. The President, Melpadi Village

Panchayat also gave necessary instructions to the 5th and 6th respondents to shift the said poultry farm 1 km away from the existing area. But, the 5th and 6th respondents did not obey the instructions issued by the President of the said Village Panchayat and in turn threatened the President of the said

Village Panchayat that they would commit suicide if the poultry farm is shifted since it would affect their income and livelihood which would lead to law and order problem. Hence, the President of the Melpadi Village

Panchayat had maintained the status quo in the said area.

11. The 3rd respondent, namely, the TNPCB, filed reply stating that on a petition received on 04.09.2013 from the applicant herein, the poultry farm was inspected by the AE of the TNPCB on 19.09.2013 and it was noticed during the inspection that the existing farm has been under operation in the residential area at a distance of 20 feet from the Tiruvalam-

Ponnai Road. Hence a show cause notice was issued to the farm on

20.09.2013 under the Air Act for not obtaining consent from TNPCB and causing nuisance of bad odour. But the 5th and 6th respondents have not responded to the show cause notice. Based on the complaint received from the Chief Minister’s Cell, the poultry farm was again inspected by the officials of the TNPCB on 06.12.2013 and during the inspection, it was again noticed that in addition to the existing unauthorized poultry farm, a new farm was also constructed nearby the complainant’s house which is at a distance of less than 100 feet from the existing primary school. It was also noticed that 2000 chickens were reared in the farm. Hence, a letter was sent to the proprietor of the poultry farm to vacate the farm immediately

Page 7 of 17

from the residential area since there is a chance of odour nuisance and health hazards in the vicinity. The owner of the poultry farm replied on

16.12.2013 that they had obtained concurrence from the Village

Administrative Officer, Melpadi Village and health clearance from the

Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and requested at least six months time to vacate the place since they had obtained private loan. The poultry farm was again inspected on 19.06.2014 and it was found that the poultry farm was in operation without any compound wall causing odour nuisance as alleged by the applicant.

12. The 5th and 6th respondents would state in reply that the poultry of the 6th respondent is at the backside of her house in the main road and the poultry of the 5th respondent is in Chinnakeesakuppam Village Street.

This is only a street and cannot be called as thick residential locality.

There are about 150 houses in the entire village. There was no objection either by the Panchayat Union Primary School or by the public.

The distance between the school and the poultry is more than 50 feet.

The respondents did not pretend to give up the idea of establishing the poultry farm. The Health Department also issued no objection certificate.

13. The 3rd respondent, TNPCB issued a letter to avoid the pollution by putting up a wall and clearing the filth periodically and as per the instructions of the 3rd respondent, TNPCB, sufficient safeguard is done by putting a thatched fence to a height of 6 feet and the filth is removed periodically. There is no foul smell emanating from the poultry so as to affect the environment.

14. The applicant has used the names of the known persons in giving the complaint and nobody signed the complaint. No public joined the applicant in filing this application nor had the school authorities given any

Page 8 of 17

complaint. There are only about 5000 chicks of 20 days old in the 6th respondent’s poultry. All the complaints and notices are only at the instance of the applicant and not at the instance of the public. The respondents are only ordinary people and the applicant is alone an influential person. The 5th and 6th respondents are having absolute safeguards to avoid any pollution or any hardship to anybody. The applicant has no cause of action to file this application and the same has been filed as an outcome of a family feud with ill-will and mala fide. When the 5th respondent tried to put up a compound wall, the applicant and her family members who is a neighbor objected to the same and there was a physical fight between both the parties.

Only after the above dispute the applicant openly declared to spoil the business of the 5th and 6th respondents and this application has been filed out of enmity. The application is vexatious and without merits.

15. As seen above, the applicant, a resident of Chinnakeesakuppam

Village, Katpadi Taluk in Vellore District has brought forth this application seeking directions to the authorities shown as 1st to 4th respondents to initiate action to close down the poultry farms run by the 5th and 6th respondents specifically alleging that the 5th and 6th respondents have been running the poultry farms in the midst of residential localities hardly 50 feet away from the Panchayat Union School and the same are causing serious health hazards to the inhabitants in the residential locality and also the school children. Despite the representations made to the authorities, the 5th and 6th respondents are permitted to carry on the poultry farms which necessitated the applicant to approach the Tribunal.

16. While admitting the existence of the poultry farms, the 5th and 6th respondents have taken a stand that it is not a residential area and no foul smell is emanating therefrom and thus there is no pollution of any kind as

Page 9 of 17

alleged by the applicant and due to personal vendetta, the application has been filed.

17. The District Collector, Vellore District, the Block Development

Officer (BDO), Sholinghur, and the Tahsildar, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District who filed a common reply, have submitted that the 5th and 6th respondents have not followed the instructions issued to stop the running of the poultry farms. It is contended by the DEE, TNPCB that following an inspection which was made on 06.12.2013, a notice was issued to the proprietors of the poultry farms to vacate the poultry farms immediately from the residential area since there was chance of odour nuisance and health hazards to the people in the vicinity. But, the proprietors of the poultry farms replied that they have obtained concurrence from the Village Administrative

Officer and clearance certificate from the Director of Public Health and

Preventive Medicine and requested six months time to vacate the premises as they have obtained private loan. Subsequently, the poultry farms were inspected on 11.02.2014 and 19.06.2014 but, the poultry farms have not vacated.

18. In order to substantiate her case, the applicant has relied on the documentary evidences. Perusal of the same would make it clear that a complaint was made by the villagers to the 1st respondent, District Collector on 02.09.2013 and the applicant was informed that an inspection was conducted on 19.09.2013 by the AE, TNPCB and that the poultry farms were being run without any consent from the TNPCB and in residential area and the Panchayat Union Primary School, as found in Annexure-II. A show cause notice dated 20.09.2013 was issued and also served upon the 5th respondent calling upon her the explanation as to why penal action should not be taken against her under Section 37 of the Air Act. It is pertinent to

Page 10 of 17

point out that the 2nd respondent, BDO has also replied to the complainant by stating that the poultry farms have been established and were being run without any permission from the Panchayat and orders were issued directing the President of the Panchayat to initiate action against the 5th respondent. The said proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 27.09.2013 is marked as Annexure-IV. The Zonal Joint Director of the Animal

Husbandry Department, Vellore as found in Annexure-V has advised the local body to prevent the location of the poultry farms at least within a distance of 1 km from the residential area and report the action taken in view of anticipated serious health hazards. Under Annexure A-VI, the 3rd respondent has issued a notice on 09.12.2013 in which the 3rd respondent has specifically stated that there was no reply received from the 5th respondent and more than 2000 chicks were being reared at the said poultry farm resulting in serious environmental pollution and health hazard in that area. Again the 2nd respondent, BDO has directed the President,

Melpadi Village Panchayat to take immediate action to remove the poultry farm from the residential area with further direction to send the action taken report as could be seen from Annexure VII. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that, though the communications and the show cause notices were issued, the authorities did not take any follow up action.

19. When the 5th and 6th respondents raised their objection in respect of the factual position, the Tribunal thought it fit to appoint an Advocate

Commissioner to make an inspection of the poultry farms of the 5th and 6th respondents after giving notice to the applicant and the 5th and 6th respondents and file a report. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner, after serving notice on either side had made an inspection on 22.09.2014 in

Page 11 of 17

presence of the parties who were with their respective counsels.

The relevant portion of the Advocate Commissioner’s report is as follows:

“ 3. I state that the subject matter poultry farms are located in Chinnakesakuppam Village, Melpadi which is around 7 km from the nearest town Thiruvalam. The area seems to be a quiet village with ardent greenery, fertile garden lands and fields. Life (Live) stocks were seemed in plenty and it seems every household has cattle shed attached to it. The Panchayat Union Primary School, house of the Applicant and house of Respondent No.5 are lying adjacent to each other facing the road leading to Chinnakeesakuppam village from Thiruvalam- road (Annexure 1). The said road leading to Chinnakeesapkuppam village falls on the northern side of the Union Primary School, house of the Applicant and house of the Respondent No. 5. The poultry farm of Respondent No. 5 lies in the southern side of the Applicant and Respondent No. 5’s house, in a property partially abutting the properties in which Applicant and Respondent No. 5’s houses are situated. The poultry farm is located in the south western direction from western boundary of the school (Annexure 2).

4. The extent of property in which the Respondent No.5’s poultry farm is situated abutting Applicant’s property is demarcated by a fence made of coconut palms (Annexure 3). The distance in between the coconut palm fence and the cattle shed, constructed in the backyard of Applicant (‘s) residence is around 11 meters. There were no cattle in the cowshed though heavy odour of the cow dung could be felt. The distance from the Respondent No. 5’s house and the poultry shed is almost equal to that of the distance from the Applicant’s house. The distance in between the south western boundary of the school and north eastern corner of the poultry shed is around 15 meters. The poultry farm consists of one of the rectangular shed lying east west direction in length. The distance in between the poultry shed and the fence demarcating the Applicant’s house is around 1 meter (Annexure 4). All the said measurements were taken by the Applicant on my instructions.

5. There were no poultry in the shed poultry shed at the time of inspection (Annexure 5). I was asked to note by the Applicant that the Respondent No. 5 on having the knowledge of appointment of Advocate Commissioner

Page 12 of 17

removed all the poultry and cleaned up. It is noticed that though there were no poultry in the shed, the shed was spread with coir pith which appeared recently laid. Further the shed is equipped which appeared to be recently laid. Further that the shed is equipped with pipelines which appears to be for the purpose of providing drinking water for poultry (Annexure 6). The end walls of the shed are facing East-West direction and side walls facing North- South. Towards the South of the poultry shed it is large extent of garden land. The roofing appeared to be made of asbestos sheet or material resembling asbestos sheet. The side walls of the shed are provided with barbed wire fencing. That the area in and around the shed is found clean at the time of inspection. The Respondent asked me to note the reason for the removal of poultry is that the poultry had completed a cycle of 45 days and fully grown and as such it was sold. That once the poultry is removed, the floor bed shall be re- laid with coir pith and a chemical treatment shall be performed and a gap of 20 days shall be given before the next batch is introduced. On enquiry it was explained to me that the dead poultry is moved immediately from the shed and it is deposited into a tank applying chemical on it for decomposition. That, the tank, is exclusively constructed for this purpose as per the instruction of the authorities and it is to be cleaned only once in 10 years (Annexure 7).

6. ****

7. The Respondent No. 6 house lies facing Thiruvalam- Ponnai Rd. The poultry farm of the Respondent No. 6 lies towards north of the Respondent No. 6 house. The poultry farm consists of a large shed lying in East-West direction. Towards the North of the poultry farm there is a double storied house. The poultry farm and the house are demarcated with a concrete compound wall (Annexure 10). Towards west of the poultry farm is the Thiruvalam-Ponnai Road. Towards east of the poultry farm is a large extent of garden land.

8. The distance between the compound of the two storied house and the poultry farm is around 1 meter (Annexure-11). There is two other poultry sheds seen in the vicinity. The poultry farm of the 6th respondent lies in the East- West direction and side walls facing north south. It was noted that the shed was full of poultry (Annexure 12). The coir pith is spread on the floor of the shed is equipped

Page 13 of 17

with pipelines which appears to be for providing drinking water for poultry and further plastic vessels filled with food grains is kept for feeding the poultry (Annexure 13). On enquiry it was explained to me that they are using modern technology in the poultry farm for providing drinking water that helps to keep the shed comparatively dry as there is no spillage of water. That there are around 5000 poultry and that they are around 33 days old. It is noted that the odour could be felt only when we are close to 1 metre of the shed. That, the surrounding area the poultry is kept clean at the time of inspection. On enquiry it was also informed that the dead birds are removed immediately and disposed in a tank which is constructed adjacent to the shed by applying some chemical for decomposition and that the tank needs to be cleaned only once in 10 years (Annexure-14). It was informed that they are into poultry farming for more than 7 years now”.

“9. I was asked to note by the Respondent No. 5 and Respondent No. 6 that they have obtained all necessary permits and have complied all procedures and that they have handed over all the details to their counsel for filing before this Hon’ble Tribunal. I was asked to note by the Applicant (‘s) counsel that the distance between the Panchayat Union Primary School and the poultry shed of the 5th respondent is less than 50 feet.

20. A very reading of the above report of the Advocate Commissioner would make it explicit that the Chinnakeesakuppam village is a quiet village with ardent greenery, fertile garden lands, fields and livestock in plenty.

The poultry farm of the 5th respondent, the Panchayat Union Primary

School, and the house of the applicant are adjacent to each other.

Though the poultry shed of the 5th respondent was found vacant at the time of inspection by the Advocate Commissioner, it is quite clear that the all the chicks should have been removed just prior to the Commissioner’s visit.

Equally, the poultry farm of the 6th respondent consists of a large shed which was adjacent to the residential area. At the time of Advocate

Page 14 of 17

Commissioner’s inspection, around 5000 chicks of 33 days old were seen.

The Advocate Commissioner has noted that the poultry farm of the 6th respondent has been in existence for the past 7 years. In view of the

Advocate Commissioner’s report as found above, the contention put forth by the 5th and 6th respondents is worth to be ignored.

21. It is not the case of either of 5th respondent or the 6th respondent that they ever obtained the consent from the TNPCB. Pointing to Annexure-

R1, the learned counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents would submit that the Health Department has given the No Objection Certificate and as per

Annexure-R2 given by the DEE, TNPCB, to avoid pollution, a wall was constructed by the 5th respondent and also for clearing the filth periodically and hence it cannot be stated that the poultry farm is being carried on without permission from the authorities. It is a matter of surprise to note as to how a No Objection Certificate was issued by the Director of Health and

Preventive Medicine to establish and carry on the poultry farm in a residential locality that too near the Panchayat Union Primary School where children are studying. Needless to say that the Health Department exists to protect the health of the society by preventing the health hazards by taking preventive and protective measures. In the instant case, the No Objection by the Health Department was issued as a matter of course to the poultry farms which are being run for a number of years. Equally, the Tribunal is able to notice a thorough inaction on the part of the DEE, TNPCB, Vellore.

It is a candid admission by the TNPCB that pursuant to a complaint by the applicant, the poultry farms were inspected on 19.09.2013. On coming to know that the poultry farms were functioning and carrying on the operations without consent of the TNPCB under the Air Act, a show cause notice was served, but there was no reply from the 5th and 6th respondents. On receipt

Page 15 of 17

of a complaint from the Chief Minister’s Cell, the poultry farms were again inspected on 12.12.2013 when it was noticed that apart from an existing poultry farm, a new poultry farm was also constructed and 2000 chicks were found reared in the existing poultry farm. But, the authorities of the TNPCB kept quiet by sending a communication to vacate the poultry farm immediately from the residential area, but have not taken any follow up action. Another inspection was taken up on 11.02.2014 when the poultry farm was found in operation during which a request was made by the owner of the poultry farm that he would vacate the same in six months time.

Not satisfied with the earlier inspections, another inspection was made on

19.06.2014 by the TNPCB. All the above would clearly indicate the fact that the DEE concerned, though conscious of the fact of the location of the poultry farms in a residential area and they are carrying on the operation without any consent from the TNPCB as required by law, had not taken any action whatsoever. He has neither performed his duty nor acted as a law enforcing authority to prevent pollution as envisaged under the Air Act.

22. In short, in can be concluded that both the 5th and 6th respondents have been carrying on operations in their poultry farms consisting of thousands of chicks in a residential locality that too without consent of the

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) as law would mandate which has to be termed as illegal and by doing so, have caused air pollution which has to be stopped by a direction to the District Environmental Engineer concerned to close both the poultry farms of the 5th and 6th respondents.

23. In view of the above observations made, the Director for Public

Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai is directed to initiate departmental disciplinary action against the officials who have given No Objection

Certificate to the poultry farms of the 5th and 6th respondents.

Page 16 of 17

24. Equally, the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is directed to initiate necessary departmental disciplinary action against the

District Environmental Engineer, Vellore for having permitted the operations of poultry farms of the 5th and 6th respondents who have caused air pollution by carrying on the operations of the unit illegally.

25. The application is ordered accordingly.

No cost.

(Justice M. Chockalingam) Judicial Member

(Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran) Expert Member

Chennai. Dated, 05th August, 2015.

Page 17 of 17