AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondent nos.1 to 7 to strictly implement Central Pollution Control Board approved guidelines for construction of poultry farm dated 20.10.2015 and also to direct respondent nos.1 to 7 to take appropriate action to restrain respondent no.8 from raising construction of poultry farm in Village-Jaipur Beesa, Mothahaldu, Lalkuan, District-Nainital within dense population area that too at a distance of 5-10 feet from residential zone.
This Court vide order dated 14.10.2026 directed State counsel to get instructions in the matter.
Today, learned counsel for the State passed on to this Court instructions and guidelines of Central Pollution Control Board, which are taken on record, and it is submitted on the basis of those instructions that State has already sealed the under constructed poultry farm.
Learned counsel for respondent no.4-Central Pollution Control Board has submitted that guidelines, are cited by petitioner are old and new guidelines of Central Pollution Control Board of January 2022 provides as under:
“7 Sitting Criteria New Poultry Farms (Set up after issuance of Guidelines) should preferably be established.
•500 m from residential zone in order to avoid nuisance caused due to odour & flies.
•100 m from major water course like river, lakes, canals and drinking water source like wells, summer storage tanks, in order to avoid contamination due to leakages/spillages, if any.
•100 m from National Highway (NH) and 50 m from State Highway (SH) in order to avoid nuisance caused due to odour & flies.
•10-15 m from rural roads/internal roads/village pagdandis.
•The poultry sheds should not be located within 10 m from farm boundary for cross ventilation and odour dispersion.”
He further submits that petitioner had commenced construction of poultry farm and applied for consent to establish the same only after commencement of construction. Such consent was never granted to respondent no.8, and, in view of the subsequent development whereby the premises have been sealed by the State Government, no consent can now be given.
In such view of the matter nothing remains to be decided in the present writ petition.
Accordingly writ petition stands disposed of.