AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 265 wordsArindam Sinha, J
Mr. Tripathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is joint verification report dated 10th November, 2021 issued by the administration recommending shifting of his client’s poultry farm to distant place from the village. He submits, the proper authority is State Pollution Control Board (SPCB), added as party and has filed counter. He draws attention to the counter to submit, the SPCB says Animal Husbandry Department of State to assist poultry farm for implementation of its guidelines. He submits, appropriate direction be made and the writ petition, disposed of.
Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of SPCB and draws attention to Environmental Guidelines for Poultry Farms bearing date August, 2021. He refers to, inter alia, siting criteria, which requires setting up of new poultry farm 500 meters from residential zone in order to avoid nuisance cause due to odour and flies.
Mr. Saa, learned advocate appears on behalf of added intervener and submits, the farm is in the middle of the village. He refers to report dated 19th June, 2017 of SPCB, whereby there was direction upon petitioner to shift her farm.
State is directed to cause its Animal Husbandry Department to make inspection of petitioner’s poultry farm and thereupon inform her as to whether it needs to be shifted. Either way there should be compliance with the guidelines. This is to be done within three weeks from date. Interim order will continue till two weeks after petitioner has been informed, regarding compliance with the guidelines.
The writ petition is disposed of.
..................................................