THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11777 of 2010 Date: 20.12.2010 Between: Chekuri Harshavardhan and another ..... Petitioners AND The Gram Panchayat, Ellendulapadu and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. K. Pallavi, for Sri K. V. Bhanu Prasad Counsel for Respondent No.1: P. Raghavendra Reddy, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayats Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 13: Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order dated 15.05.2010 of respondent No.1, whereby the Panchayat Secretary of Ellendulapadu Village directed the petitioners to remove the poultry sheds from the place in which they are presently run. The petitioners have established the poultry sheds in Ellendulapadu Village, on the strength of a resolution passed by respondent No.1 Gram Panchayat on 28.08.2009. Some of the villagers have approached the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.1 with a complaint on 03.04.2010 stating that running of poultry by the petitioners in the residential area is causing grave health hazards to the villagers apart from unbearable stink and nuisance to them. Responding to the said complaint, the Panchayat Secretary issued notice dated 05.05.2010, wherein it is alleged that the poultry is causing unbearable stink and nuisance and therefore, the petitioners were called upon shift the poultry to another place away from the residential colonies. The petitioners were also called upon to explain what steps are being taken by them to prevent spreading of odour and to maintain hygienic conditions in running the poultry. In reply to the said notice, petitioner No.1 has submitted his explanation, wherein he has mainly relied upon the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and that till the notice was received by them, they were not aware that any one has any grievance against running the poultry and that they have been taking all steps to maintain hygiene. Not being satisfied with the said explanation, the Panchayat Secretary has passed the impugned order on 15.05.2010, wherein he has directed the petitioners to shift the poultry to a place at a distance of at least half a kilo meter from the residential colonies. This order has been questioned in this writ petition. I have extensively heard Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P. Raghavendra Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 13, who got themselves impleaded in the writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, Smt. M.S.S. Sarada Devi, the Panchayat Secretary, Ellendulapadu, has inter alia stated that in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 26.06.2009, permission was granted to the petitioners on 28.08.2009 on condition that they have to take steps to prevent causing of any inconvenience to the villagers; that they failed to comply with the said condition and that in the Praja Padam programme held by the local M.L.A., all the villagers have made representations with a request to cause removal of the poultry from the present place. It is further stated that in view of the serious inconvenience being caused to the villagers on account of the petitioners’ failure to comply with the condition subject to which permission was granted, the impugned order was passed. On behalf of the impleaded respondents, respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein, while denying that on account of the local politicians, complaint was made, he has stated that due to the running of the poultry farm at the present place, the villagers have been suffering from ailments such as headache, motions apart from deterioration in health condition of asthama patients. It is further stated that the poultry sheds are located immediately adjoining the houses of respondent Nos.2, 5 and 9 and some other villagers and that they are causing continuous nuisance to the said respondents and their family members making their life miserable. In support of their averments, these respondents have filed photographs, authenticity of which is not denied by the petitioners. Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, has strenuously contended that his clients have been running the poultry sheds on the basis of the permission granted by the Gram Panchayat and that they have taken all possible steps to maintain hygiene and prevent nuisance. In their affidavit, the petitioners themselves have admitted that there are three houses adjourning the poultry sheds on the northern side. The averments of the impleaded respondents, therefore, stand fortified by the petitioners’ own admission in this regard. Indubitably running of poultry farm in a residential area creates health hazards apart from causing air and noise pollution. Such an activity in the midst of a residential locality cannot be permitted and it is a matter of surprise that respondent No.1 has chosen to grant permission to the petitioners for such a hazardous activity when admittedly at least three houses are adjoining the poultry sheds. The Gram Panchayat, being the local authority, is vested with the onerous responsibility of maintaining hygiene in the Village and protecting public health from external causes such as pollution, both air and noise and by preventing spreading of the diseases. It is the duty of the Gram Panchayat to regulate the industrial and commercial activities and ensure that these activities do not cause health hazards to the inhabitants. Such being the case, while the very grant of permission in favour of the petitioners itself is questionable, at least when the Gram Panchayat has realised its responsibility and taken necessary steps to protect the public health, this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not prevent the Gram Panchayat from undertaking such measures. From the photographs filed by the impleaded respondents and the admissions made by the petitioners that at least three houses are in the nearby vicinity of the poultry sheds, I am fully convinced that it is not desirable to permit the petitioners to continue running of the poultry sheds at the present place. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that his clients have procured alternative land situated away from the residential area and that they need reasonable time for shifting the poultry. Learned counsel assured the Court that till shifting of the poultry to the said place, he will undertake all such measures which would prevent any kind of nuisance to the residents of the Village. Having regard to this submission of the learned counsel, while declining to interfere with the impugned order, I deem it appropriate that the petitioners are given a reasonable time for shifting the poultry. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to shift the poultry from the present place within a period of three months from today. If the petitioners do not shift the poultry, respondent No.1 shall take action immediately on expiry of the period of three months for closing the poultry and prosecuting the petitioners under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim stay granted on 20.05.2010 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.14883 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.No.2558 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th December, 2010 GHN