Karnataka High Court
Barimaru Gram Panchayath vs The Executive Officer on 11 August, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION No.15282 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
BARIMARU GRAM PANCHAYATH,
BARIMARU KAGEKAANA POST,
BANTWALA TLAUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 253
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
SMT. SHASHIKALA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYAT BANTWALA
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 219.
2. P.S. PRAKASH SHETTY,
S/O LATE D. SANKAPPA SHETTY,
MANAGING PARTNER,
COASTAL FARM 3-45-10 B,
KANNUR NAVADURGA GARAGE,
MANGALORE D.K - 575 009
(REGISTERED UNDER FSS ACT 2006)
3. DAKSHINA KANNADA THE ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
URVA STORE, ASHOKANAGAR POST
MANGALURU - 575 006.
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANMOHAN P.N, ADVOCATE FOR R2 )
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 04.01.2022 PASSED BY THE
R-1 IN NO.TAPAMBAM/APPEALU.08/2021-22 VIDE ANNX-A
AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The second respondent after obtaining trade license under the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (for short 'the FSSAI), submitted an application with the petitioner for grant of trade license and the request of the second respondent was acceded by the petitioner by issuing a trade license to establish and operate meat processing unit.
2. After obtaining the trade license from the petitioner, the second respondent established the meat processing unit in the subject property and when the license which was granted by the FSSAI expired, the second respondent submitted an application for renewal of the license. At that point of time, the second 3 respondent was instructed to obtain No Objection Certificate from the petitioner, in terms of guidelines for grant/renewal of MFPO license, inspection and market outlet checks. Thereafter the second respondent approached the petitioner for grant of NOC as required by the FSSAI.
3. The petitioner rejected the application submitted by the second respondent for grant of NOC on the ground that the second respondent is discharging the effluents on the neighbouring lands and public places thus causing public nuisance. Against which the second respondent filed an appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The first respondent by order dated 04.01.2022 set aside the resolution passed by the petitioner and directed the petitioner to grant NOC by imposing certain terms and conditions. Against which the present petition is filed.
4
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the NOC cannot be granted in favour of the second respondent having regard to the fact that the second respondent is causing public nuisance and the first respondent ignoring the spot inspection report has passed the impugned order. He further submits that the first respondent has no power to direct the petitioner to issue grant of NOC and utmost could have directed the petitioner to consider the application submitted by the second respondent for grant of NOC.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the petitioner cannot refuse to grant NOC on the ground that the petitioner is discharging effluents to the neighbouring lands, since the authority to take action against the alleged discharge of effluents is the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (for short 'the Board') under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. He further submits 5 that the Board has submitted the report dated 01.12.2021 stating that there is no violation of the consent order issued under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is in accordance with law and the same does not warrant any interference.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
7. The request of the second respondent for grant of NOC was rejected solely on the spot inspection report wherein it is alleged that the second respondent is discharging effluents on the neighbouring lands and also causing public nuisance. The Board which is the competent authority, after conducting the spot inspection has submitted a report dated 01.12.2021 stating that the respondent has not violated any of the terms and conditions of the consent order passed under the Section 25(4) of the Water (Prevention and Control 6 of Pollution) Act, 1974. Hence, the resolution passed by the petitioner rejecting the application submitted by the second respondent for grant of NOC on the ground that the petitioner is discharging effluents on the neighbouring lands is impermissible, since the Board has already submitted a report stating that the petitioner has not violated the conditions contained in the consent order. The first respondent taking into account the report submitted by the Board, has rightly passed the impugned order.
8. In view of preceding analysis, it is held that the Board having already granted consent to the second respondent, the respondent is entitled for grant of trade license. Hence, the Appellate Authority has rightly passed the order directing the petitioner to grant trade license and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that direction should have been issued to consider the application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law is not sustainable.
7
9. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the first respondent. Accordingly I pass the following:
ORDER Petition stands dismissed. Petitioner to implement the impugned order passed by the first respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE RKA