THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.14970 OF 2010 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the notice, dated 22.06.2010, issued by respondent No.2 under Section 41(2)(3) and 45 and 47 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Health Act, 1939 (for short, ‘the Act’) read with Sections 521 (i), e(ii), 492, 596 and 622(4) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 directing the petitioner to vacate the poultry shed by removing the live stock therein as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same. 2. The brief facts, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, are that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.1.06 cs in R.S.No.5/2B of Kunda Vari Kandrika having acquired the same through registered partition deed. The petitioner obtained ‘No Objection Letter’ from the neighbouring land owners to develop his land into poultry shed on 17.01.2006 and obtained loan from Central Bank of India and developed his land into poultry shed. His neighbours also started business of poultry nearer to his land. His neighbours sustained loss in the said business, but the petitioner did not sustain any loss and developed his business. Having bore grudge against the petitioner, when his neighbours started proclaiming that they would not allow him to carry his business, he filed O.S.No.550 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for declaration that the agreement of ‘No Objection’, dated 17.01.2006, is binding on them and they cannot deviate the terms and condition and also for permanent injunction, wherein temporary injunction was granted on 26.04.2010. While so, respondent No.2 issued the impugned notice on 22.06.2010 to stop his poultry business. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter-affidavit stating that basing on the complaint from Sri D.Venkata Reddy to the effect that the poultry farm is emanating foul odour causing health hazards, propagation of flies and nuisance, number of notices were issued by the respondents to the petitioner that if the poultry is not maintained in a hygienic way, stringent action would be taken. The petitioner submitted explanation that he would take all precautions to avoid complaints and take remedial measures. After each complaint, the Health Officer along with the Sanitary Inspector used to visit the poultry shed and advise him to take remedial measures to control the bad odour, insects and flies by using sufficient disinfectants, insecticides and deodorants. If the flies and mosquitoes are propagated, they would cause vomitings, Diarrhoea, breathing problem, cough, allergy and other diseases. All the petitions were endorsed by the Commissioner and respondent No.2 was instructed to inspect and take action. Respondent No.2 inspected the premises of poultries belonging to the petitioner and others with concerned AMOH and Sanitary Inspector and found that there is bad odour emanating from the poultry sheds, and also dust raising out of poultry sheds causing allergy, Asthma and other lung related health problems besides large number of house flies, which can cause health hazard by contaminating food and water and hence, a final notice was issued on 22.06.2010 to the petitioner to vacate the poultry shed within 24 hours, failing which action would be taken to auction the live birds and remove the shed. Every time, when an inspection was made by the health authorities, the petitioner was directed to vacate the poultry shed, but he used to come with a defense that he is using deodorants and insecticides to control the bad odour and insects. In view of the ensuing monsoon and rainy season, it is felt that it is highly essential to vacate the poultry shed to avoid fevers and other health related problems and hence, the impugned notice was issued. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order has been issued due to political reasons and therefore, prays to issue a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to set aside the same. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that several notices have been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has not taken any remedial measures so as to prevent health hazards and hence, there are no grounds in this writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. As seen from the counter-affidavit, about four notices have been issued to the petitioner stating that the poultry farm is emanating foul smell and propagating flies and if it is not maintained in a hygienic way, action would be initiated. Section 41 of the Act reads as under:-, “Certain things to be nuisances:- Without prejudice to the generality of the definition of the expression ‘nuisance’ contained in Clause (25) of Section 3, the following shall be deemed specifically to be nuisances for the purposes of this Chapter:- 1) any premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance; 2) any pond, pool, ditch gutter, water-course, water- trough, latrine, cesspool, drain or ash pit which is so foul or in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance; 3) any animal kept in such a place or manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance……..” The petitioner undertook to initiate remedial measures to control the bad odour, insects and flies by using sufficient disinfectants, insecticides and deodorants. As running of the poultry farm is causing Diarrhoea, breathing problem, cough, allergy and other diseases, petitioner ought to have taken precautionary measures so as to prevent all hazards so as to safeguard the public health, but such action has not been taken inspite of giving a first notice on 09.02.2009. Thereafter, in the same way, notices were issued on 06.05.2009 and 06.04.2010 and a final notice was issued on 15.04.2010. There is no averment in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner has taken all the preventive measures, which were pointed out by the Public Health Department. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, since the petitioner got this poultry farm by virtue of a registered partition deed and he has been doing the said business from the year 2006 onwards, a reasonable time can be granted to the petitioner to remove the poultry farm, which is in the midst of residential houses, to enable him to shift or make alternate arrangement. Considering the facts and circumstances, two (2) months time from today is granted to the petitioner for removal of the poultry shed. If the petitioner fails to remove the same, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are at liberty to remove the same and collect the expenses from the petitioner without giving any further notice. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 23rd December, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.14970 OF 2010 Date:23.12.2011 AMD