AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been preferred against order of the SDM, Assandh, District Karnal, Haryana dated 10.08.2021 for disposal of birds of the appellant poultry farm, to give effect to closure order, on account of violation of environment norms. The Haryana Government vide dated 19.11.2020 asked the SDM, Assandh to enforce its order dated 27.06.2016 under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act, 1986) requiring the appellant to comply with the directions dated 29.05.2013 for compliance of environmental norms - raising a green belt, proper drainage/outlet for collection and discharge, not obstructing the water course, maintaining manure storage dumps, composting facility, incinerator, reducing water use and spills from drinking devices, storing manure properly, disposing of the waste feed properly, using mechanical control to kill or repel pests, providing vehicle tyre dip at entrance control gate, establishment of sound biodiversity protocols and providing bio-security protocols for poultry operations.
We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. At the outset, we note that there is no provision for appeal to this Tribunal against an order of the SDM. Learned Counsel submits that this appeal be treated against order under Section 5 of the EP Act, 1986. We find that there are three orders: 29.5.2013, 27.6.2016 and 19.11.2020. The appeal is beyond limitation, including the period which this Tribunal can condone, with reference to all the three orders. No application has been filed for condonation of delay. Only during the hearing, it is orally stated that the appellant had not received a copy of any of the orders but it is not so stated in the memo of appeal. Rather, it is stated that inspection was carried out which has been relied upon to argue that there is an improvement in sanitation. This belies the argument that the appellant was not aware of the proceedings earlier. Moreover, such plea ought to have been taken before the authorities to claim that there was no non-compliance for which the order had been passed. The impugned orders show that there are serious violations for a long period of time extending upto eight years.
In view of above, we are unable to entertain the appeal.
The appeal is dismissed.
In view of order in the main appeal, IA No. 18/2021 also stands disposed of.