Kuldeep Mohanty vs. State Of Odisha

Facts

The petitioners, residents of Ward No. 8 and 9 of Udala Notified Area Council (NAC), filed a writ application challenging the construction of a Micro Compost Plant on land under Khata No. 170, Plot Nos. 105, 109, 110, and 101/844. The NAC published notices for the construction of the plant and its boundary wall. The petitioners contended that the proposed site was adjacent to their residences and would negatively impact their health, safety, and the environment, violating Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. The opposite party (NAC) argued that the selected site was approximately one kilometer from residential areas, suitable for the plant, and chosen after due consideration of various factors, including directions from the National Green Tribunal and the State Government, and after a previous site was found insufficient.

Held

The Court held that the provisions of Clause (f) of Sub-rule 1 to Rule 11 and Rule 12(a) of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, pressed into service by the petitioners, had no nexus with the objections raised at this point. The Court noted that the land was initially selected for a slaughterhouse following a dereservation process. Subsequently, a sub-divisional committee, headed by the Sub-Collector, found the site suitable for a Micro Compost Plant after following due process. The decision-making process considered the impact on the environment and the health and hygienic living conditions of the locality. The Court found no reason or justification to entertain the writ application, as the construction activities would be carried out within a boundary wall and the authorities had taken into account the relevant rules and public interest. The interim order was vacated, and the application was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the selection of the land for the construction of the Micro Compost Plant, specifically over Khata No. 170 in Plot Nos. 105, 109, 110, and 101/844 of mouza – Unit 9, violates the provisions of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, particularly Clause (f) of Sub-rule 1 to Rule 11 and Rule 12(a)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the decision to construct the Micro Compost Plant was taken without adhering to the provisions of Clause (f) of Sub-rule 1 to Rule 11 and Rule 12(a) of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, and without considering their grievances, thus rendering the decision liable to be set aside. Revenue/State's arguments: The opposite party (NAC) contended that the site selection committee had previously identified the land for a slaughterhouse. However, due to subsequent needs and directions from the National Green Tribunal and the State Government, a meeting chaired by the Sub-Collector decided to establish the Micro Compost Plant on this land, considering public interest and ensuring no pollution or unhygienic conditions. They argued that the criteria for landfill sites were not applicable to a Micro Compost Centre. The State reiterated that the Collector, after considering all views, was satisfied with the suitability of the site.