LexRAMJI PATEL AND ORS. versus NAGRLK UPBHOKTA MARG DARSHAK MANCH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAMJI PATEL A"ID ORS. v. NAGRlK UPBHOKTA MARG DARSHAK M.\NCH A'lD ORS. FEBRLARY 17, 2COO B [S. SAGHIR AHtvlAD, R.C. LAHOTI A'.\D Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.j Af.P. Cattle (Control) Act, IY78-<.'untrol of water Pollution- ·In an earlier PIL, owners of dairies shifting their dairies tu villages 'L' and 'G' Fresh PlL filed jnr a direction to the dairy owners to shut their dai1ies C from villages 'L' and 'Ci' also alltging that cow dung etc. may contaminate the water pipeline gumg nearby it-High Cowt allowed the praye1~-Appeal before Supreme Cuun by dairy mvner.1--Supreme Coll/1 directing Central Pol- lution Control Board ro visit the area and file a project repon-Board recom- mending installation •Jf bio gas plant.\' Some of the dairy owners inclllring fees in installing the plant as pa the recommendation of the Board-During D the pendmcy of the appeal, Municipal Corporation issuing Votijication dated 19.03. 1999 excluding villages 'L' and 'Ci' from the list of "excepted vil- lage "-Held, validity uf the notification cannot be challenged in the absence of pleadings in that regard-Liberty granted to the dairy owners to challenge the Notification in a fresh proceedings befort the High Court-<:onstitution E of India, Article.1 21, 226 and 136. Madhya Pradesh Cattle (( ontrol) Act, 1978 was enforced within the municipal limits of Jabalpur with effect from 27th January, 1978, and in the Notification issued by the Commissioner, \funicipal Corporation, Jabalpur, on September 24, 1979, it was stated that the cattle could not be F kept within the limits of Jabalpur Municipal Corporation, except in the villages which were ~ pecified in the list set out in the ~ otification. This list included villages 'G' and 'L' also in pursuance of the Resolution adopted by the Municipal Corporation on 21.10.1997. Both the villages 'G' and 'L' were taken out of the list of "excepted villages" vide Notification published G in the Government Gazette on 19.3.1999. High Court in an earlier Public lnterest Litigation had directed the dairy owners to shift their dairies to village 'L' and 'G' which had been excepted from the operation of the Act and allowed that dairies in these two villages can be established and cattle could be kept there. Respondent No. H 1 filed a further PIL that due to storing of the cow dung and waste of dairy l006 RA.\1.JIPATJ::L v. l"'AGRIKIJPBHOKL'AMARGDARSHAKMANCH 1007 products near main drinking water pipeline was likely to contaminate the A pure drinking water through it. High Court allowed shifting o.f these dairies from their present location to alternative sites. Hence this appeal. This Court hearing the appeal directed the Central Pollution Con- trol Board to submit a project report to prevent the possibility of con- tamination of drinking water carried through the pipeline. Board, inter B alia, recommended setting up of Bio Gas Plant. One of the dairy owner incurring an expenditure of Rs. 5,86,000 in paying inspection fee to the Board and in installing a Bio Gas Plant. However, during the pendency of proceedings before this Court, Municipal Corporation issued a N otifica- tion dated 19.3.1999 under the Act excluding village 'L' and 'G' within the C purview of "excepted villages" where the dairies were situated. Disposing of the matters, this Court HELD : 1. Supply of pure drinking water is the statutory duty of the Municipal Corporation and the supply of such water has to be ensured to D every citizen. In a situation, where the interest of the community is in- volved, the individual interest must yield to the interest of the community or the general public. Since the M.P. Cattle (Control) Act, 1978 is already in force within the Municipal limits of Jabalpur city, dairies cannot be established and cattle cannot be kept so as to cause public nuisance in contravention of the statutory provisions. But the Court cannot dlsO ov·erlook the fact that the 11etitioners, who had alread:i- been uprooted from one place, and that too, at the dictate of the judiciary, bad established dairies at the place at which such activity was not prohibited. In the list of villages appended to the Notification issued under the Cattle (Control) E Act, 'L' and 'CJ' were the villages, besides other villages, where such activity F could be legally carried on. These villages were taken out of that list during the pendency of the present proceedings by virtue of a Resolution adopted by the Mun
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.