Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03/12/2010
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
Writ Petition (MD) No.12948 of 2010
and
Writ Petition (MD) No.13105 of 2010
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 2 and 1 of 2010
M/s.Supreme Poultry Private Limited,
Rep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director,
P & C Towers,
No.140, Perundhurai Road,
Erode - 638 011. .. Petitioner in
both W.Ps.
Versus
1.The District Collector-cum-
Inspector of Panchayats,
Karur District,
Karur.
2.The President,
Kodanthur Village Panchayat,
Aravakurichi Taluk,
Karur District. .. Respondents in
W.P.(MD)No.12948/2010
1.The District Collector-cum-
Inspector of Panchayats, Karur District, Karur.
2.The President, Kodanthur Village Panchayat, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District.
3.The Vice President, Kodanthur Village Panchayat, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District. .. Respondents in W.P.(MD)No.13105/2010 Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.12948 of 2010 Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in her proceedings Na.Ka.A6/4207/2010 dated 11.10.2010 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.
Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.13105 of 2010 Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.I dated 4.10.2010 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.
!For Petitioners ... Mr.K.M.Vijayan in both W.Ps. Senior Counsel for M/s.B.Saravanan ^For Respondent 1 ... Mr.K.M.Vijaya Kumar in both W.Ps. Special Government Pleader For Respondent 2 ... Mr.T.Mohan for Mr.M.P.Senthil in W.P.(MD)No.12948/2010 For Respondents ... Mr.T.Mohan for Mr.M.P.Senthil 2 and 3 in W.P.(MD)No.13105/2010 :COMMON ORDER
Since, the facts and circumstances and the issues arising for the consideration of this Court are similar in nature, in both the writ petitions, a common order is passed.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner company is a Private Limited Company, registered with the Registrar of Companies, in No.181-3077 of 1991. The petitioner company has been in the business of establishing and running of poultry farms and manufacturing of poultry feeds. It had purchased nearly 75 acres of land, by way of registered sale deeds, with a view to establish a poultry farm and a feed manufacturing mill at Kodanthur Village (South) in Karur District. Thereafter, the petitioner company had made an application, before the second respondent Panchayat, for the grant of building permission, for the construction of the feed manufacturing mill, at Survey No.696, Kodanthur Village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District. The second respondent had granted the building permission, as requested by the petitioner company, in his proceedings MuMu.No.2/2010-2011, dated 05.04.2010, for a period of one year, commencing from 05.04.2010 and ending on 04.04.2011, with certain conditions.
3. It has been further stated that the petitioner company had approached the Commissioner, Karur Paramathi Panchayat Union, for obtaining an appropriate planning approval. The Panchayat Union had passed a resolution, dated 16.04.2010, giving its consent for the establishment of a poultry farm and a feed manufacturing mill. Based on the said resolution, the Commissioner of the Panchayat Union had granted the required permission, by his proceedings, dated 28.04.2010, in Na.Ka.A6/1037/2010. Thereafter, the petitioner company had made an application to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for its approval. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board was pleased to grant the consent order for the establishment of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, by its proceedings, dated 31.03.2010, under the relevant provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Thereafter, the petitioner company had approached the Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, which had also granted the permission for the fixing of the machineries, in its proceedings, dated 08.05.2010. The Fire and Rescue Department had also granted the 'No Objection Certificate', for the establishment of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill.
4. It has also been stated that, based on the permissions, the approvals and the 'No Objection Certificate', granted by the various authorities concerned, the Indian Overseas Bank, Erode, had sanctioned a sum of Rs.2.5 crores, in favour of the petitioner company. The petitioner company had also invested huge sums of money in purchasing the necessary machineries, fabrication of the cages, purling, the levelling of land, etc., to the tune of Rs.3 crores. While so, a rival business group had filed a suit, in O.S.No.225 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur, for a decree of declaration and permanent injunction, to declare the erection and running of the poultry farm in the suit property, by the defendants therein, as objectionable as it would cause a lot of nuisance to the inhabitants of the area concerned. It had also been prayed that the defendants in the suit should be restrained from putting up any further construction in the suit property, for the establishment and running of the poultry farm. However, no interim order had been granted in the said suit. However, due to the influence of the rival business group, the Karur Paramathi Panchayat Union Council had passed a resolution, dated 01.07.2010, in resolution No.565, cancelling the permission granted to the petitioner company for the setting up of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill. On the basis of the said resolution, the Commissioner of Karur Paramathi Panchayat had passed an order, dated 05.07.2010, bearing proceedings Na.Ka.A6/1037/2010, cancelling the licence and the building permission granted in favour of the petitioner company. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, Karur Paramathi Panchayat Union, dated 05.07.2010, the petitioner company had filed a Writ Petition, in W.P.(MD)No.8812 of 2010, before this Court. By an order, dated 28.07.2010, this Court had quashed the impugned order.
5. It has been further stated that, by the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District, in Na.Ka.No.5261/2010, dated 28.09.2010, the petitioner company had been directed to appear before him, on 04.10.2010, for a peace committee meeting, on the basis of the representation, dated 04.10.2010, made by the second respondent. In the meanwhile, the first respondent had passed an order, dated 11.10.2010, in her proceedings, in Na.Ka.A6/4207/2010, cancelling the plan/building permission granted by the second respondent, stating that no resolution had been passed by the Kodanthur Village Panchayat and that the second respondent had granted the building permission violating the Government norms. Aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent, dated 11.10.2010, the petitioner company had filed a Writ Petition before this Court, in W.P.(MD)No.12948 of 2010, wherein, this Court had granted an order of interim stay of the order passed by the first respondent, dated 11.10.2010, in M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010, in W.P.(MD).No.12948 of 2010.
6. It has been further stated that, in the meanwhile, the third respondent had passed the impugned order in his proceedings, in Na.Ka.No.1, dated 04.10.2010, cancelling the building plan issued by the President of Kodanthur Village Panchayat, for the setting up of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, stating that it would cause pollution in the surrounding areas and that, due to the growth of mosquitoes and flies, various diseases would be spread in the nearby areas. By the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 04.10.2010, the petitioner company had been instructed to stop construction works. It had also been warned that appropriate action would be taken under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
7. It has also been stated that in the order passed by this Court, in the writ petition, in W.P.(MD)No.8812 of 2010, it has been held that it is only the Pollution Control Board, which has got the exclusive jurisdiction and authority to say as to whether the poultry farm in question would cause water or air pollution. The local authority is not a scientific or expert body to come to the conclusion that the poultry farm or the feed manufacturing mill would cause pollution. Thus, it is clear that the local body is not the appropriate authority to give a final opinion on matters relating to pollution.
8. It has also been stated that the reason assigned in the impugned order that the establishment of the poultry farm and the setting up of the feed manufacturing mill would result in the growth of mosquitoes and flies, which would spread various diseases, cannot be held to be valid, as the petitioner company had obtained the necessary permission from the Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine. Further, the second and the third respondents cannot be said to be well-versed in the subjects of pollution and health. Further, the impugned order is not within the jurisdiction assigned to them, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
9. It has also been submitted that the building permission can be granted by the second respondent, without raising it before the Council of the Village Panchayat. The third respondent had passed the impugned order, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner company. Hence, the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 04.10.2010, is liable to be set aside, as null and void.
10. It has also been submitted that after obtaining the necessary licence and the building permission, the petitioner company had started construction works and had made huge investments in the project. Some rival business groups have been making futile attempts to stop the construction works, in one way or the other, in spite of the fact that an order had been passed by this Court, in favour of the petitioner company, on 28.07.2010, in W.P.(MD)No.8812 of 2010.
11. In the Writ Petition, in W.P.(MD) No.12948 of 2010, the petitioner company had challenged the order passed by the District Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayats, Karur District, the first respondent herein, dated 11.10.2010, in Na.Ka.A6/4207/2010. It has been stated that the impugned order passed by the first respondent, cancelling the plan/building permission granted by the second respondent, is illegal, as it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It has also been stated that even in the absence of a plan/building permission, the petitioner company is entitled to proceed with the setting up of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, on the basis of the licence granted by the Karur Paramathi Panchayat Union.
12. It has also been stated that Section 160 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, deals with the obtaining of the permission for the construction of the feed manufacturing mill and for the installation of the machineries therein. Under the scheme contemplated by the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, it would be sufficient for obtaining a licence and the building plan from the Panchayat Union concerned. There is no provision requiring the petitioner company to obtain a building permission, separately, from the executive authority of the Village Panchayat, forming a part of the Panchayat Union. It is only by way of abundant caution that the petitioner company had obtained the plan/building permission from the second respondent, in his proceedings, dated 05.04.2010. Further, under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997, the power to grant plan/building permission is vested with the executive authority of the Village Panchayat, namely, the President. Therefore, there is no requirement to place the application, for the grant of building permission, before the Panchayat Council, prior to the approval of the same by the executive authority, under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997. Therefore, the reason assigned for the passing of the impugned order, dated 11.10.2010, by the first respondent, is not supported by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997. As such, the impugned order of the Vice-President, Kodanthur Village Panchayat, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District, dated 04.10.2010 has been challenged in the writ petition, in W.P.No.13105 of 2010 and the impugned order of the District Collector-cum- Inspector of Panchayats, Karur District, dated 11.10.2010, has been challenged by the petitioner company, in the Writ Petition, in W.P.(MD)No.12948 of 2010, as they are illegal and invalid in the eye of law.
13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company had submitted that the impugned order of the third respondent, in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1, dated 04.10.2010, challenged in W.P.(MD) No.13105 of 2010 and the impugned order of the first respondent, in her proceedings, in Na.Ka.A6/4207/2010, dated 11.10.2010, are illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, they are liable to be set aside.
14. It has also been stated that the impugned orders have been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner company. There is no legal requirement, for the granting of the plan/building permission, by the executive authority of the Village Panchayat, only after placing the matter before the Panchayat Council.
15. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company had also submitted that the third respondent is not vested with any power, under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, to cancel the order passed by the President of the said Panchayat. The reasons assigned in the impugned order, dated 04.10.2010, for cancelling the building permission are not tenable, as the issue had already been settled by this Court, in its order, dated 28.07.2010, made in W.P.(MD)No.8812 of 2010.
16. It had also been submitted that the impugned orders are motivated and suffers due to the mala fide action of the rival business groups. It had also been submitted that the petitioner company had invested huge sums of money for setting up the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, by obtaining a bank loan. Hence, the petitioner company has been under a legitimate expectation that it would be permitted to set up the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, without hindrance. It has also been submitted that, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the power to grant permission, for the construction of factories and for the installation of machineries, is vested with the Panchayat Union Council and not with the Village Panchayat. Even in the absence of the permission from the second respondent, the petitioner company is entitled to proceed with the setting up of the poultry farm. The first respondent is not vested with the power to issue the impugned proceedings, dated 11.10.2010, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, cancelling the order passed by the second respondent, granting the necessary permission to the petitioner company to establish the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill.
17. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner company had also submitted that the consent order required for establishment of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill had been obtained from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, on 24.03.2010,. The necessary consent orders had also been obtained from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to establish the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, as well as under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
18. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order of the District Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayats, Karur District, dated 11.10.2010, and the order of the Vice President of Kodanthur Village Panchayat, Karur District, dated 4.10.2010, are illegal and void, as they had been passed deliberately to subvert the interim orders passed by this Court, dated 21.10.2010, in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2010, in W.P(MD).No.12948 of 2010 and in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2010, in W.P(MD).No.13105 of 2010. The said orders would amount to colourable exercise of power as they had been passed contrary to the procedures established by law.
19. It has also been stated that the impugned orders had been passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Company, under Clause 2 of Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994. The said orders are also inconsistent with Section 160 of the Act, as it is clear that even without the permission of the Village Panchayat, the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill could be established. Both the impugned orders had been passed on wrong presumptions of the facts and the law.
20. It has also been submitted that the building plan granted in favour of the Petitioner Company cannot be cancelled, by any authority or body, on the ground that the establishment of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill would cause pollution. In the present case, both the District Collector, Karur District, as well as the Vice-President of Kodanthur Village Panchayat, had been swayed by the public opinion, even though, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, which is an expert body had given the green signal to the Petitioner Company to go ahead with the establishment of the poultry farm, as well as the feed manufacturing mill.
21. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company had submitted that once the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had issued a consent order for the establishment of a poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, the other authorities and the local bodies, including the respondents in the present writ petitions, cannot have an objection against the establishment of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, stating that they would be causing pollution. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is the final authority, with regard to the matters relating to pollution, in spite of the fact that the petitioner company had obtained all necessary orders from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, as well as the building permission from the President of the Kodanthur Village Panchayat, on 05.04.2010. The Vice-President of the said Panchayat had passed the impugned proceedings, dated 04.10.2010, stating that the building permission had been granted by the President of the Kodanthur Village Panchayat in favour of the petitioner company, for the establishment of the poultry farm, arbitrarily, without following the procedures established by law. In the said impugned order, it had also been stated that the matter relating to the granting of building permission to the petitioner company had not been placed before the Panchayat council before the President had granted the said permission, on 05.04.2010. It had also been stated in the said proceedings that the establishment of the poultry farm would result in the degradation of ecology, resulting in unhygienic conditions prevailing in the area concerned. Therefore, the permission granted by the President of the Village Panchayat, on 05.04.2010, has been cancelled.
22. It had also been submitted that the permission granted in favour of the Petitioner Company to establish the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill is only a preliminary step. Thereafter, it would be open to the authorities concerned to go into the issues relating to pollution, if it is found to be necessary. Neither the District Collector, who is the Inspector of Panchayats, nor the Executive of the Village Panchayat would have the power to prevent the Petitioner Company from taking steps to establish the poultry farm, as well as the feed manufacturing mill, at the initial stage itself.
23. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second and the third respondents, it has been stated that the President of Kodanthur Village Panchayat was on leave, from 13.10.2010, due to illness. Therefore, he had delegated the functions to the Vice-President, as per Section 48 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994, and in consonance with the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (devolution and delegation of President's Functions) Rules, 1999. The other averments and the allegations made by the Petitioner Company in the affidavits filed in support of the Writ Petitions had been denied.
24. It had also been stated that the impugned orders had been passed after considering the public interest of the people, who are living in the nearby villages. In fact, more than seven Panchayats have passed resolutions opposing the establishment of poultry farms. The permission obtained by the Petitioner Company through the order, dated 05.04.2010, is contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (building) Rules. The approval granted in favour of the Petitioner Company is against the resolution of the Panchayat, dated 27.03.2010, and against the interests of the people at large, who are the residents of the nearby villages. Since, the proposed poultry farm would cause pollution, adversely affecting the health of the general public, due to the breeding of mosquitoes and flies, leading to the spreading of diseases, the second respondent had cancelled the order, dated 05.04.2010, by a resolution of the Village Panchayat, dated 01.10.2010. The impugned order passed by the Vice- President, dated 04.10.2010, is only a consequential order, and it was communicated to the Petitioner Company and to the other officials concerned, on 21.10.2010.
25. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second and the third respondents, in W.P.(MD) No.13105 of 2010, it has been stated that the second respondent Village Panchayat consists of 16 hamlets. The petitioner company had purchased nearly 75 acres of land, at Udaiyanpalayam, in Kodanthur Village (South) which is located in the mist of the other villages coming under the Kodanthur Village Panchayat. Even though the lands in question had been purchased by the petitioner company for the purpose of carrying on agricultural activities, the petitioner company has proposed to establish a poultry farm and a feed manufacturing mill therein. All the 16 hamlets are coming under the Kodanthur Village Panchayat, situated within 1 to 3 kilometers from the proposed poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill. The starting of the poultry farm would cause serious problems of pollution and it would induce the breeding of mosquitoes and flies, due to which, a number of diseases would be spread amongst the inhabitants of the area concerned. Thus, the establishment of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill would pose serious health hazards, not only to the people of the area, but also to the animals in the locality. The establishment of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill in the locality concerned would also cause nuisance to the villagers due to the foul smell emanating from the farm and the mill. It would also lead to environmental degradation in the said area due to air and water pollution.
26. It has also been stated that more than 2000 people are residing in the villages coming under the Kodanthur Village Panchayat. The petitioner company is proposing to establish a poultry farm with more than ten lakhs birds and therefore, it would cause serious harm to the ecological balance prevailing in the nearby villages. Knowing about the serious damages that could be caused by the establishment of a poultry farm, more than seven Panchayats in and around the Kodanthur Village Panchayat had passed resolutions opposing the establishment of a poultry farm in the areas coming under their jurisdiction. More over, in the meeting held, on 02.10.2010, at the Grama Sabha Panchayat, all the residents of the Village Panchayat had participated and had raised their objections against the establishment of the poultry farm, at Udaiyanpalayam.
27. Further, the petitioner company had admitted, during the peace committee meeting, held on 04.10.2010, that they are going to sink massive bore wells by drilling for more than a thousand feet. If such borewells are allowed to be sunk, it would lead to the drying up of the available water resources in and around the Kodanthur Village, resulting in water scarcity, even for drinking purposes. It would also seriously affect the agricultural activities in the area concerned, including the rearing of cattle. Further, the establishment of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, at Udaiyanpalayam, would cause serious water pollution in the Amaravathi river, which is running within a distance of one kilometer from the area in question, at Moolathurai.
28. It has also been stated that the Kodanthur Village Panchayat has the power and the authority to refuse the grant of building plan. Even if such approval had been granted, it could be cancelled by the Village Panchayat concerned, if sufficient reasons are existing for such cancellation.
29. It has also been stated that a Writ Appeal had already been filed against the order passed by this Court, on 05.07.2010, in W.P.No.8812 of 2010. No notice had been issued to the petitioner company before the cancellation of the earlier order granted in its favour, as it was an illegal order. Further, the first respondent is empowered to suspend or cancel any resolution passed, order issued or licence or permission granted under Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. In such circumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioner company, in W.P.No.13105 of 2010, is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
30. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents and in view of the records available before this Court and on considering the decisions cited, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. Even though the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had granted its consent in view of the relevant provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Village Panchayat concerned has to grant its approval for the establishment of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, especially, when it involves the issues relating to the health and well-being of the residents of the nearby areas. Even though the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board have given its consent for the establishment of the poultry farm, as well as the feed manufacturing mill, the local Village Panchayat would have the authority to consider the aspects relating to the nuisance, that could be caused by the establishment of such a farm or a mill, and the issues relating to the health hazards that may be caused to the people at large, as well as to the animals and the degradation of the environment, in general. Even though the petitioner company may have the Fundamental Right to establish the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, to carry on its business, it could be curtailed by certain reasonable restrictions enforced by the State. Even though the Karur- Paramathi Panchayat Union had given its consent through its resolution, dated 16.04.2010, permitting the petitioner company to set up the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, it would be necessary for the petitioner company to obtain the consent of the local Village Panchayat, as provided under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and the Rules framed thereunder.
31. It is also noted that no resolution had been passed in the Kodanthur Village Panchayat, approving the building plan and the granting of the permission to establish the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill. Even though the President of the Kodanthur Village Panchayat had granted his approval, by his proceedings, dated 05.04.2010, the said proceedings had been cancelled, by the resolution of the said Panchayat, dated 01.10.2010. The said resolution had not been challenged in the manner known to law. Thereafter, the Vice-President of the Kodanthur Village Panchayat had issued an order, dated 04.10.2010, acting on behalf of the Village Panchayat, in the absence of the President, as per the provisions of Section 48 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Devolution and Delegation of the President's Functions) Rules, 1999.
32. From the records available before this Court, it is noted that a peace committee meeting had been held, on 04.10.2010, wherein the adverse consequences that may arise following the establishment of the poultry farm, as well as the feed manufacturing mill, had been enumerated. The petitioner company seems to have agreed to stop the constructions, till 25.10.2010.
33. It is also noted that the resolutions had been passed by seven Village Panchayats close to Kodanthur Village, to deny the permission to establish the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill in their areas. As per Section 160 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the necessary permission has to be obtained from the Panchayat Union Council concerned to construct or establish any factory, workshop or work place, in which, it is proposed to enjoy steam power, water power or other mechanical power or electrical power or for installing, in any such premises, any machinery or manufacturing plant. Thus, it is clear that the consent granted by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, for the establishment of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, is not final. The provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, should be read in consonance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. When the Village Panchayat had passed a resolution, on 27.03.2010, refusing to grant permission for the establishment of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, it cannot be rescinded by the President.
34. It is also seen that Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, empowers the District Collector, who is the Inspector of Panchayats, to suspend or cancel any resolution passed, the order issued, or licence or permission granted or to prohibit the doing of any act, if a resolution passed, or an order, licence or permission granted had not been legally done. It also empowers the District Collector to prohibit the doing of any act, which is about to be done or which is being done pursuant to such a resolution or order, licence or permission if the execution of which is likely to cause danger to human life, health or safety. Therefore, it is clear that the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is not the sole repository of power, with regard to all matters relating to pollution. If the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is the final authority relating to matters of pollution and its effects on people and the environment, Section 160 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, would be rendered redundant or otiose. Even though it had been claimed that no notice had been issued to the petitioner company before the impugned order had been passed, it would be appropriate for the petitioner company to avail the alternative remedy available, under the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, including the remedy of revision provided under Section 219 of the said Act.
35. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:
36. 1. In Action Council, Poovathode and Others v. Benny Abraham and Others (2002) 9 Supreme Court Cases 493, it had been held as follows: "3. It is no doubt true that the entrepreneur had obtained the necessary "no-objection certificate" from the environmental authorities. But the Panchayat, on consideration of the matter, was of the opinion that the decision not to grant permission to instal the metal crusher machine would be in the interest of the public and it ascribed 4 reasons as to why the Panchayat comes to the conclusion that it would not be in the public interest to grant such licence. All those reasons, to our mind, are germane to the issue and cannot be held to be arbitrary or fictitious."
37. 2. In Kings India Chemicals Corporation Limited v. The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats, 2010 (1) CWC 319, it had been held that, under Section 160 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, and the relevant rules made under the said Act, the Village Panchayat is empowered to reconsider the resolution passed earlier.
38. 3. In Manjapara Grama Panchayat v. State of Kerala, CDJ 1996 Kerala High Court 222, it had been held as follows:
"It is evident from Section 166(1) of the Act it is the mandatory duty of every village Panchayat to control unauthorised building construction and land utilisation. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer has a duty to consult the Panchayat. Therefore, the mere fact that Revenue Divisional Officer has given permission does not mean that Panchayat has no legal right to object to the conversion of paddy field."
39. It had also been noted that the District Collector had passed the impugned proceedings, dated 11.10.2010, stating that on inspection of the records of the Kodanthur Village Panchayat, it had been found that no resolution had been passed in the Kodanthur Village Panchayat, in favour of the petitioner company for the establishment of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill. It had also been stated that the approval of the building plan for the construction of the building had not been granted in accordance with Government rules framed for the said purpose. As such, the first respondent had rejected the permission granted to the petitioner company for the establishment of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill to be established, at Udaiyanpalayam, in Karur District.
40. From the records available before this Court, it is seen that the impugned orders had been passed taking into consideration the public interest of those who are residing in the vicinity of the area concerned and carrying on the agricultural activities. Only based on the representations made by the villagers belonging to the villages in the area concerned, the first and the third respondents, in W.P.(MD) No.13105 of 2010, had passed the impugned orders rejecting the building plan and the permission granted in favour of the petitioner company for the construction of the buildings.
41. It is also seen that the petitioner company is not in a position to show that the apprehensions of the people of the villages concerned are ill- founded. Even though an order, dated 11.10.2010, had been passed by the first respondent and an order had been passed by the third respondent, on 04.10.2010, without issuing any notice, such orders need not be set aside, in view of the fact that the building permission had been granted by the President of the Kodanthur Village Panchayat, arbitrarily, without following the procedures established by law.
42. As seen from the provisions of Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the District Collector, Karur District, who is the Inspector of Panchayats, has the power to suspend or cancel any resolution passed, order issued or licence or permission granted, if such resolution, order or licence has not been legally passed, issued or granted, or if it is found that it is not in exercise of powers conferred by the Act or any other law, or an abuse of such powers or if it is considered to be otherwise undesirable, or if it would cause danger to the human life or health or safety. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 11.10.2010 and the impugned order of the third respondent in the writ petition, in W.P.No.13105 of 2010, dated 04.10.2010. Therefore, the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. However, in view of the fact that no notice had been issued to the petitioner company before the impugned order had been passed and no opportunity had been given to the petitioner company to put forth its views, it would be appropriate for the first respondent to hold an enquiry, after giving sufficient notice to the petitioner company and to such other persons, authorities and local bodies as the first respondent may consider to be necessary, and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner company is in a position to convince the first respondent that no pollution or health hazard or ecological imbalance or degradation of the environment would be caused, due to the establishment of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, the petitioner company may be permitted to establish the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, at Udaiyanpalayam, as already proposed by the petitioner company.
srm To The District Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayats, Karur District, Karur.