[ad_1]
Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Citizen Of The Village (Churegaon Gram … vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 July, 2025
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 10810 OF 2022)
CITIZEN OF THE VILLAGE (CHUREGAON APPELLANT(S)
GRAM PANCHAYAT) & ORS.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against a judgment dated
29.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in a petition
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.),
which had in fact arisen out of the proceedings under Section 133
Cr.P.C.
3. The controversy, in brief, pertains to the setting up of a
poultry farm in the close vicinity of Village Churegaon, Gram
Panchayat Singarpuri, Tehsil Farasgaon, District Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh. The citizens of said village were aggrieved against
establishment of the poultry farm and accordingly approached the
High Court.
4. However, their petition has been disposed of by the High Court
vide the impugned order with a direction that respondent No.2,
namely, the proprietor of the poultry farm shall abide by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kondagaon vide an
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2025.07.23
08:55:53 IST
Reason:
order dated 19.02.2019. Moreover, it was directed that respondent
1
No.2 shall also follow Guidelines as mentioned in clause 7 of the
Environmental Guidelines for Poultry Farms issued by the Central
Pollution Control Board. Still aggrieved, the residents of the
village are before us.
5. What has transpired in sum and substance is that respondent
No.2 had purchased a plot of agricultural land in the said village
and after obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Gram
Panchayat, he established the poultry farm. It is admitted that no
prior consent of the State Pollution Control Board or any other
statutory authority dealing with environmental issues was obtained
for the same. Subsequently, the residents of the village, filed a
complaint under Section 133(b) of the Cr.P.C., apprehending the
possibility of public nuisance.
6. The Tehsildar was accordingly directed to inspect the site and
submit a report, according to which, the land where the poultry
farm was set up was about 500 mtrs. from the village abadi. There
were two residential houses situated near the disputed land and the
distance of the road from the disputed land was approx. 1.200 kms.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, consequently, restrained respondent
No.2 from constructing the poultry farm. However, on a revision
petition filed by him, the Sessions Judge vide an order dated
19.09.2019, permitted to establish the poultry farm subject to
certain conditions. The High Court, in a way, has approved those
conditions vide the impugned order.
2
7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8. As per the State Counsel, the Guidelines issued by the Central
Pollution Control Board referred to by the High Court, have been
stayed by this Court in some separate proceedings. It is also a
matter of fact that respondent No. 2 has not obtained any prior
consent or permission of the State Pollution Control Board or the
relevant District Administration before setting up the poultry
farm. In fact, the Executive Magistrate restrained him from
establishing it and it is the learned Sessions Judge, who without
appreciating the nuisance, pollution, foul smell, that is caused in
the close vicinity by the poultry farm, allowed the revision
petition of respondent No.2.
9. The only additional condition that seems to have been imposed by
the High Court was re-implementation of the revised Guidelines
issued by the Central Pollution Control Board. However, as noticed
earlier, if those Guidelines are also non-operative due to judicial
intervention, it is imperative for the State Government and the
State Pollution Control Board to lay down uniform Guidelines, which
must be complied with before establishing a poultry farm. The
conduct of the State Pollution Control Board in granting post facto
consent and that too, without conducting a fresh inspection to
ensure that the mandatory guidelines are complied with, is an
exceptionally unusual exercise, to say the least. In our
considered opinion, all these aspects have not been kept in view by
the High Court while passing the impugned judgment.
3
10. Consequently, without expressing any final opinion, we set
aside the impugned judgment and remand the case back to the High
Court. The State Government and the State Pollution Control Board
are both directed to bring on record the specific Guidelines
referred to hereinabove, keeping in view the local conditions. Such
Guidelines must be applied uniformly and in conformity with the
environmental laws of the country. The appellant shall be at
liberty to apply to the High Court for any interim direction and
such an application shall be considered in accordance with law.
The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on
31.07.2025.
11. The appeal stands disposed of, in the above terms.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………..J.
(SURYA KANT)
……………………..J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 18, 2025.
4
ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10810/2022
[Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 29-04-2022 in
CRMP No. 2573/2019 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at
Bilaspur]
CITIZEN OF THE VILLAGE (CHUREGAON GRAM PANCHAYAT)
& ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 45288/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND IA No.
162106/2022 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 18-07-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Aditya, Adv.
Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. S Rajesh Agrajit, D.A.G.
Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR
Mr. Arjun D Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ishika Neogi, Adv.
Mr. Manish Kumar Gupta, AOR
Ms. Harshita, Adv.
Mr. Sharad Prakash Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Sangita Gupta, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(NITIN TALREJA) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
5
[ad_2]
Source link