AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been preferred against order dated 27.05.2016 of Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana, in compliance of an earlier order under Section 5 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, laying down norms for compliance by poultry farms. The order is based on inspection carried out by the State PCB, finding that the appellant was non-compliant, as follows:-
"1. The unit is not complying with the direction no. 1(4) i.e. the Poultry Farm shall raise green belt all around the farm with minimum of two rows spaced apart of not more than 3 m.
The unit is no complying with the direction no. 1(7) i.e. the proper drainage / outlet for collection and discharge shall be provided for storm runoff/ discharge from the farm.
The unit is complying with the direction no. 1(8) i.e. the no obstruction shall be created for any water course within the farm or outside the farm boundary.
The unit is not complying with the direction II(2) i.e. the litter/manure storage dumps shall a 25 m. buffer strip all around to keep out of wet area/ drainage discharge.
The unit is not complying with direction no. IV(B)(4) i.e. the composting facility shall be secured with link mesh all around raised to a height of 1.5 m above the ground level to avoid the predation of stray dogs etc.
The unit is not complying with direction no. IV(C) (I) i.e. the incinerator shall be located in down wind direction to the poultry houses and populated areas.
The unit is not complying with direction no. IV (C) (2) (b)i.e. the reduce water use and spills from drinking devices by preventing overflow of leakage and using, well maintained self -watering devices.
The unit is not complying with direction no. VII (A) (6) i.e. store manure properly by following appropriate storage technologies like composting.
The unit is not complying with direction no. VII (C) (5) i.e. dispose property the waste feed with due consideration to bio-security and environment.
The unit is not complying with direction no. VII (E) (2) i.e. use mechanical controls in preference to chemical controls to kill or repel pests on the farm.
The unit is not complying with direction no. VII (E) (3) (iii) i.e. provision for vehicle tyre dip shall be made available at the entrance control gate.
The unit is not complying with direction no. VII (E) (6) i.e. establishment of sound bio-security protocols (specific to location, structural and operational) will minimize the potential for the spread of pathogens.
The unit is not complying with direction no. VII (E) (7) i.e. the bio-security protocols shall be uninterrupted and included for the entire poultry operation that control animals, feed equipment transport personal, visitors, stray animals, migratory bird, rodents etc."
Even though the order dated 27.05.2016 was passed, the appellant unit continued to function without compliance and further orders were passed from time to time, last order being dated 10.08.2020 by SDM, Assandh, District Karnal Haryana for disposal birds.
The appellant preferred Appeal no. 18/2021, M/s Madadh Poultry Farm v. Haryana State PCB & Ors. against order dated 10.08.2020 by SDM, Assandh, District Karnal, Haryana which was considered by this Tribunal vide order dated 03.09.2021 as follows:-
"1. 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."
In the present appeal, only change is that the prayer has been changed from appeal being against order of SDM to order of State Government and application has been filed to condone delay of 1896 days on the sole ground that order came to the notice of the appellant for the first time on 10.08.2021 when SDM, Assandh passed an order of execution.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The order dated 03.09.2021 quoted above shows that the plea of the appellant that it was not aware of the order dated 27.05.2016 was rejected for two reasons:-
(I) Memo of appeal mentioned that inspection was carried out earlier, to the knowledge of the appellant, which showed improvement in the situation, compared to the violations earlier noticed. The said averments belied the stand of the appellant that it was not aware of the earlier orders.
(II) The appellant failed to take the plea of lack of knowledge of the order before the Authorities so that if appellant had not received order and had subsequently complied with the norms of environment, the concerned authority could look into the same.
Letter dated 01.04.2016, annexure A-3, shows that inspection was conducted on 18.12.2015 and show cause notice dated 29.12.2015 was issued to the appellant. Letter dated 19.11.2020, annexure A-5, further shows that closure compliance was done on 30.06.2016 and the occupier of the farm was ordered to stop the farming activity and exhaust all birds within 60 days by way of sale/transfer or any other means. Thus, the plea of lack of knowledge of the appellants about the proceedings in the last five years cannot be accepted.
In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal the same is dismissed.
In view of order in the main matter, all pending I.A.s also stands disposed of.