Madras High Court
Sri Madura Vinayagar Kudiyiruppor ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 September, 2019
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam, R.Tharani
W.P.(MD)No.20936 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.09.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI
W.P.(MD)No.20936 of 2019
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.17510 and 17512 of 2019
Sri Madura Vinayagar Kudiyiruppor Nalasangam,
represented by its Secretary,
Mohideen Bawa. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Fort.St.George,
Chennai-09.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Commissionerate of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam, Cheupak,
Chennai-600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Madurai, Madurai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai, Madurai District.
5.The Tahsildar,
Madurai South,
Madurai District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/9
W.P.(MD)No.20936 of 2019
6.The Executive Engineer, Zone-4,
Office of the Commissioner,
Madurai Corporation,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order
passed by the sixth respondent vide his proceedings Ref.No.k.bgh.4/015340/19,
dated 07.08.2019 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to forbear the
respondents from in any way constructing the compost yeard at Survey No.394,
Ward No.94, Avaniyapuram MMC colony, Madurai Corporation Zone-4, Madurai
District within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan
Government Advocate for R.1 to R.5
Mr.R.Murali
Standing Counsel for R.6
*****
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.) Heard Mr.H.Mohammed Imran, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate accepting notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 and Mr.R.Murali, learned Standing Counsel accepting notice on behalf of the sixth respondent.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2/9 W.P.(MD)No.20936 of 2019
2. With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The petitioner is an Association formed by the residents of an area called “Sri Madura Vinayagar Kudiyirupor Nalasangam”. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the sixth respondent, namely, the Executive Engineer, Zone – 4, Madurai Corporation, Madurai, dated 07.08.2019 as being illegal and consequently, forbear the respondents from constructing the compost yard at Survey No.394, Ward No.94, Avaniyapuram MMC Colony, Madurai, Corporation Zone – 4, Madurai District.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, as framed by the Government of India and has drawn the attention of this Court to Schedule I which deals with Specifications for Sanitary Landfills. The learned Counsel has referred to clause (viii) in Para (A) of Schedule I and submitted that the landfill site shall be 100 meter away from river, 200 meter from a pond, 200 meter from Highways, Habitations, Public Parks and water supply wells and 20 Km away from Airports or Airbase and it is submitted that the proposed Compost Yard which is being implemented by the sixth respondent, clearly violates the conditions in clause (vii) of Para (A) of Schedule I to the said Rules. http://www.judis.nic.in 3/9 W.P.(MD)No.20936 of 2019
5. Further, it is submitted that when the information was sought for under the Right to Information Act, a reply was given on 04.06.2019 that no work order has been issued for establishing a Micro Compost Yard in question. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that within hardly one month, when another query was made under the Right to Information Act by one A.K.Mohaideen Babu, a reply was sent that an administrative approval has been granted for establishing a Micro Compost Plant in the area in question.
6. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that without following any of the conditions stipulated under the Central Rules, the sixth respondent Corporation is proceeding with the construction and the representation sent by the petitioner Association to all the authorities including the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, on 01.08.2019, has not been taken into consideration. The protest made by the residents of that area before the Collectorate, Madurai District, was also not taken into account though the same was widely reported in various Tamil Dailies.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also produced photographs to show that the said area is densely populated and there are houses constructed mostly by the people from the Middle Income Group and Lower Income Group and if the Compost Yard is located in the midst of the residential area, it will not only be a http://www.judis.nic.in 4/9 W.P.(MD)No.20936 of 2019 big nuisance, but also a health hazard to all the residents and children residing therein.
8. Mr.R.Murali, learned Standing Counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that the petitioner is under the misapprehension that the Madurai Corporation is going to establish a Sanitary Landfill to which alone, the conditions stipulated in the said Rules would apply, but what is being proposed to construct is only a Micro Compost Yard and the nature of activity to be done in the Micro Compost Yard is as stipulated in Rule 15 (zi) and the concept which is being adopted is to segregate the garbage as biodegradable and non-biodegradable from sources and in respect of biodegradable wastes, scientific process is adopted to convert into manure. Further, it is submitted that Micro Compost Yard does not violate any of the conditions stipulated under the said Rules and every care is taken by the respondent Corporation to ensure that the local people are no manner affected and strict guidelines for Micro Compost Yard have to be framed and the respondent Corporation will adhere to those conditions. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner Association and its members should extend their co-operation to the respondent Corporation as it is the waste generated by the residents of that area which is going to be segregated and collected and it will ensure that the entire locality is maintained in a clean and hygienic condition.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5/9 W.P.(MD)No.20936 of 2019
9. After elaborately considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, we are of the considered view that clause (vii) of Para (A) of Schedule I to the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, will have no application to the Micro Compost Yard which is proposed in the place in question. The said condition in clause (vii) of Para (A) of Schedule I to the said Rules, applies to a landfill and landfills are of different kinds and one such kind is Sanitary Landfill and the conditions for such other landfills are different from the Sanitary Landfill. In any event, Micro Compost Yard had not become a landfill as it is only a segregation point and the biodegradable waste is to be converted into manure.
10. From the photographs produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we find that the compound wall around the Micro Compost Yard is not to the desired height and it appears to be less than 5 feet. It is, no doubt, true that the respondents are bound to follow the rules, but the question is, who is to monitor the respondent Corporation whether they are following the rules or not?
11. In fact, the respondent Corporation has to adopt a self-regulatory method and the onus is on them and the Micro Compost Yard should be maintained properly, so that, the residents of that area are not affected. We agree with the learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation that the residents of that area should extend their co-operation instead of resisting the project. In fact, one of us, while http://www.judis.nic.in 6/9 W.P.(MD)No.20936 of 2019 dealing with similar matters in respect of Micro Compost Yard had allowed the writ petition, but the order was reversed by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court, taking note of the concept to be implemented by the local bodies. The public should definitely adopt to changes and if the change is going to improve the environment, it goes without saying that the public of that area should extend their fullest co- operation and therefore, on the grounds raised by the petitioner, we cannot set aside the order passed by the sixth respondent Corporation. However, we direct the sixth respondent Corporation to ensure that the compound wall is increased to 7 feet within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also ensure that no foul smell emanates from the site as it commenced its operations and also conduct periodical meetings with the residents of that area and sensitise them about the process which the Corporation intends to adopt.
12. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
Index :Yes/No [T.S.S.,J.] [R.T.,J.]
Internet :Yes/No 27.09.2019
rsb
To
1.The Principal Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai-09.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7/9 W.P.(MD)No.20936 of 2019
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Commissionerate of Municipal Administration, Ezhilagam, Cheupak, Chennai-600 005.
3.The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.
5.The Tahsildar, Madurai South, Madurai District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8/9 W.P.(MD)No.20936 of 2019 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.
AND R.THARANI,J.
rsb W.P.(MD)No.20936 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.17510 and 17512 of 2019 27.09.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 9/9