{"id":128021,"date":"2010-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010"},"modified":"2017-04-03T19:12:42","modified_gmt":"2017-04-03T13:42:42","slug":"ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Supreme Poultry Private … vs The District Collector-Cum- on 3 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.Supreme Poultry Private … vs The District Collector-Cum- on 3 December, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 03\/12\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN\n\nWrit Petition (MD) No.12948 of 2010\nand\nWrit Petition (MD) No.13105 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1, 2 and 1 of 2010\n\nM\/s.Supreme Poultry Private Limited,\nRep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director,\nP & C Towers,\nNo.140, Perundhurai Road,\nErode - 638 011.\t\t\t.. Petitioner in\n \t\t\t\t\t   both W.Ps.\n\nVersus\n\n1.The District Collector-cum-\n    Inspector of Panchayats,\n  Karur District,\n  Karur.\n\n2.The President,\n  Kodanthur Village Panchayat,\n  Aravakurichi Taluk,\n  Karur District.\t\t\t.. Respondents in<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t\t\t   W.P.(MD)No.12948\/2010<\/p>\n
1.The District Collector-cum-\n<\/p>\n
    Inspector of Panchayats,
\n  Karur District,
\n  Karur.\n<\/p>\n
2.The President,
\n  Kodanthur Village Panchayat,
\n  Aravakurichi Taluk,
\n  Karur District.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Vice President,
\n  Kodanthur Village Panchayat,
\n  Aravakurichi Taluk,
\n  Karur District.\t\t\t.. Respondents in
\n\t\t\t\t\t   W.P.(MD)No.13105\/2010<\/p>\n
Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.12948 of 2010<\/p>\n
Petition filed under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling
\nfor the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in
\nher proceedings Na.Ka.A6\/4207\/2010 dated 11.10.2010 and quash the same as
\nillegal and without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.13105 of 2010<\/p>\n
Petition filed under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling
\nfor the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in
\nhis proceedings Na.Ka.No.I dated 4.10.2010 and quash the same as illegal and
\nwithout jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
\n\n!For Petitioners \t\t... Mr.K.M.Vijayan\n in both W.Ps.\t     \t    \t    Senior Counsel for\n\t\t     \t    \t    M\/s.B.Saravanan\n^For Respondent\t1\t\t... Mr.K.M.Vijaya Kumar\n in both W.Ps.\t     \t            Special Government Pleader\nFor Respondent 2 \t\t... Mr.T.Mohan for Mr.M.P.Senthil\nin W.P.(MD)No.12948\/2010\t\nFor Respondents\t\t\t... Mr.T.Mohan for Mr.M.P.Senthil\n2 and 3 in W.P.(MD)No.13105\/2010\n\n:COMMON ORDER\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tSince, the facts and circumstances and the issues arising for the
\nconsideration of this Court are similar in nature, in both the writ petitions, a
\ncommon order is passed.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. It has been stated that the petitioner company is a Private Limited
\nCompany, registered with the Registrar of Companies, in No.181-3077 of 1991.
\nThe petitioner company has been in the business of establishing and running of
\npoultry farms and manufacturing of poultry feeds.  It had purchased nearly 75
\nacres of land, by way of registered sale deeds, with a view to establish a
\npoultry farm and a feed manufacturing mill at Kodanthur Village (South) in Karur
\nDistrict.  Thereafter, the petitioner company had made an application, before
\nthe second respondent Panchayat, for the grant of building permission, for the
\nconstruction of the feed manufacturing mill, at Survey No.696, Kodanthur
\nVillage, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District.  The second respondent had granted
\nthe building permission, as requested by the petitioner company, in his
\nproceedings MuMu.No.2\/2010-2011, dated 05.04.2010, for a period of one year,
\ncommencing from 05.04.2010 and ending on 04.04.2011, with certain conditions.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. It has been further stated that the petitioner company had approached
\nthe Commissioner, Karur Paramathi Panchayat Union, for obtaining an appropriate
\nplanning approval.  The Panchayat Union had passed a resolution, dated
\n16.04.2010, giving its consent for the establishment of a poultry farm and a
\nfeed manufacturing mill.  Based on the said resolution, the Commissioner of the
\nPanchayat Union had granted the required permission, by his proceedings, dated
\n28.04.2010, in Na.Ka.A6\/1037\/2010.  Thereafter, the petitioner company had made
\nan application to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for its approval.  The
\nTamil Nadu Pollution Control Board was pleased to grant the consent order for
\nthe establishment of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, by its
\nproceedings, dated 31.03.2010, under the relevant provisions of the Water
\n(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and
\nControl of Pollution) Act, 1981.  Thereafter, the petitioner company had
\napproached the Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, which had
\nalso granted the permission for the fixing of the machineries, in its
\nproceedings, dated 08.05.2010.  The Fire and Rescue Department had also granted
\nthe ‘No Objection Certificate’, for the establishment of the poultry farm and
\nthe feed manufacturing mill.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. It has also been stated that, based on the permissions, the approvals
\nand the ‘No Objection Certificate’, granted by the various authorities
\nconcerned, the Indian Overseas Bank, Erode, had sanctioned a sum of Rs.2.5
\ncrores, in favour of the petitioner company.  The petitioner company had also
\ninvested huge sums of money in purchasing the necessary machineries, fabrication
\nof the cages, purling, the levelling of land, etc., to the tune of Rs.3 crores.
\nWhile so, a rival business group had filed a suit, in O.S.No.225 of 2010, on the
\nfile of the District Munsif Court, Karur, for a decree of declaration and
\npermanent injunction, to declare the erection and running of the poultry farm in
\nthe suit property, by the defendants therein, as objectionable as it would cause
\na lot of nuisance to the inhabitants of the area concerned.  It had also been
\nprayed that the defendants in the suit should be restrained from putting up any
\nfurther construction in the suit property, for the establishment and running of
\nthe poultry farm.  However, no interim order had been granted in the said suit.
\nHowever, due to the influence of the rival business group, the Karur Paramathi
\nPanchayat Union Council had passed a resolution, dated 01.07.2010, in resolution
\nNo.565, cancelling the permission granted to the petitioner company for the
\nsetting up of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill.  On the basis of
\nthe said resolution, the Commissioner of Karur Paramathi Panchayat had passed an
\norder, dated 05.07.2010, bearing proceedings Na.Ka.A6\/1037\/2010, cancelling the
\nlicence and the building permission granted in favour of the petitioner company.
\nAggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, Karur Paramathi Panchayat Union,
\ndated 05.07.2010, the petitioner company had filed a Writ Petition, in
\nW.P.(MD)No.8812 of 2010, before this Court.  By an order, dated 28.07.2010, this
\nCourt had quashed the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. It has been further stated that, by the proceedings of the Tahsildar,
\nAravakurichi Taluk, Karur District, in Na.Ka.No.5261\/2010, dated 28.09.2010, the
\npetitioner company had been directed to appear before him, on 04.10.2010, for a
\npeace committee meeting, on the basis of the representation, dated 04.10.2010,
\nmade by the second respondent.  In the meanwhile, the first respondent had
\npassed an order, dated 11.10.2010, in her proceedings, in Na.Ka.A6\/4207\/2010,
\ncancelling the plan\/building permission granted by the second respondent,
\nstating that no resolution had been passed by the Kodanthur Village Panchayat
\nand that the second respondent had granted the building permission violating the
\nGovernment norms.  Aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent, dated
\n11.10.2010, the petitioner company had filed a Writ Petition before this Court,
\nin W.P.(MD)No.12948 of 2010, wherein, this Court had granted an order of interim
\nstay of the order passed by the first respondent, dated 11.10.2010, in M.P.(MD)
\nNo.1 of 2010, in W.P.(MD).No.12948 of 2010.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. It has been further stated that, in the meanwhile, the third respondent
\nhad passed the impugned order in his proceedings, in Na.Ka.No.1, dated
\n04.10.2010, cancelling the building plan issued by the President of Kodanthur
\nVillage Panchayat, for the setting up of the poultry farm and the feed
\nmanufacturing mill, stating that it would cause pollution in the surrounding
\nareas and that, due to the growth of mosquitoes and flies, various diseases
\nwould be spread in the nearby areas.  By the impugned order of the third
\nrespondent, dated 04.10.2010, the petitioner company had been instructed to stop
\nconstruction works.  It had also been warned that appropriate action would be
\ntaken under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. It has also been stated that in the order passed by this Court, in the
\nwrit petition, in W.P.(MD)No.8812 of 2010, it has been held that it is only the
\nPollution Control Board, which has got the exclusive jurisdiction and authority
\nto say as to whether the poultry farm in question would cause water or air
\npollution.  The local authority is not a scientific or expert body to come to
\nthe conclusion that the poultry farm or the feed manufacturing mill would cause
\npollution.  Thus, it is clear that the local body is not the appropriate
\nauthority to give a final opinion on matters relating to pollution.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. It has also been stated that the reason assigned in the impugned order
\nthat the establishment of the poultry farm and the setting up of the feed
\nmanufacturing mill would result in the growth of mosquitoes and flies, which
\nwould spread various diseases, cannot be held to be valid, as the petitioner
\ncompany had obtained the necessary permission from the Department of Public
\nHealth and Preventive Medicine.  Further, the second and the third respondents
\ncannot be said to be well-versed in the subjects of pollution and health.
\nFurther, the impugned order is not within the jurisdiction assigned to them,
\nunder the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. It has also been submitted that the building permission can be granted
\nby the second respondent, without raising it before the Council of the Village
\nPanchayat.  The third respondent had passed the impugned order, without
\naffording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner company.  Hence, the
\nimpugned order of the third respondent, dated 04.10.2010, is liable to be set
\naside, as null and void.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. It has also been submitted that after obtaining the necessary licence
\nand the building permission, the petitioner company had started construction
\nworks and had made huge investments in the project.  Some rival business groups
\nhave been making futile attempts to stop the construction works, in one way or
\nthe other, in spite of the fact that an order had been passed by this Court, in
\nfavour of the petitioner company, on 28.07.2010, in W.P.(MD)No.8812 of 2010.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.  In the Writ Petition, in W.P.(MD) No.12948 of 2010, the petitioner
\ncompany had challenged the order passed by the District Collector-cum-Inspector
\nof Panchayats, Karur District, the first respondent herein, dated 11.10.2010, in
\nNa.Ka.A6\/4207\/2010.  It has been stated that the impugned order passed by the
\nfirst respondent, cancelling the plan\/building permission granted by the second
\nrespondent, is illegal, as it is in violation of the principles of natural
\njustice.  It has also been stated that even in the absence of a plan\/building
\npermission, the petitioner company is entitled to proceed with the setting up of
\nthe poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, on the basis of the licence
\ngranted by the Karur Paramathi Panchayat Union.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. It has also been stated that Section 160 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats
\nAct, 1994, deals with the obtaining of the permission for the construction of
\nthe feed manufacturing mill and for the installation of the machineries therein.
\nUnder the scheme contemplated by the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, it would
\nbe sufficient for obtaining a licence and the building plan from the Panchayat
\nUnion concerned.  There is no provision requiring the petitioner company to
\nobtain a building permission, separately, from the executive authority of the
\nVillage Panchayat, forming a part of the Panchayat Union.  It is only by way of
\nabundant caution that the petitioner company had obtained the plan\/building
\npermission from the second respondent, in his proceedings, dated 05.04.2010.
\nFurther, under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997, the power to
\ngrant plan\/building permission is vested with the executive authority of the
\nVillage Panchayat, namely, the President.  Therefore, there is no requirement to
\nplace the application, for the grant of building permission, before the
\nPanchayat Council, prior to the approval of the same by the executive authority,
\nunder the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997.  Therefore, the reason
\nassigned for the passing of the impugned order, dated 11.10.2010, by the first
\nrespondent, is not supported by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,
\n1994 and the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997.  As such, the impugned
\norder of the Vice-President, Kodanthur Village Panchayat, Aravakurichi Taluk,
\nKarur District, dated 04.10.2010 has been challenged in the writ petition, in
\nW.P.No.13105 of 2010 and the impugned order of the District Collector-cum-
\nInspector of Panchayats, Karur District, dated 11.10.2010, has been challenged
\nby the petitioner company, in the Writ Petition, in W.P.(MD)No.12948 of 2010, as
\nthey are illegal and invalid in the eye of law.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company had
\nsubmitted that the impugned order of the third respondent, in his proceedings
\nNa.Ka.No.1, dated 04.10.2010, challenged in W.P.(MD) No.13105 of 2010 and the
\nimpugned order of the first respondent, in her proceedings, in
\nNa.Ka.A6\/4207\/2010, dated 11.10.2010, are illegal, without jurisdiction and in
\nviolation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, they are liable to
\nbe set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. It has also been stated that the impugned orders have been passed
\nwithout affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner company.  There is
\nno legal requirement, for the granting of the plan\/building permission, by the
\nexecutive authority of the Village Panchayat, only after placing the matter
\nbefore the Panchayat Council.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company had
\nalso submitted that the third respondent is not vested with any power, under the
\nTamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, to cancel the order passed by the President of
\nthe said Panchayat.  The reasons assigned in the impugned order, dated
\n04.10.2010, for cancelling the building permission are not tenable, as the issue
\nhad already been settled by this Court, in its order, dated 28.07.2010, made in
\nW.P.(MD)No.8812 of 2010.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. It had also been submitted that the impugned orders are motivated and
\nsuffers due to the mala fide action of the rival business groups.  It had also
\nbeen submitted that the petitioner company had invested huge sums of money for
\nsetting up the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, by obtaining a bank
\nloan.  Hence, the petitioner company has been under a legitimate expectation
\nthat it would be permitted to set up the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing
\nmill, without hindrance.  It has also been submitted that, as per the provisions
\nof the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the power to grant permission, for the
\nconstruction of factories and for the installation of machineries, is vested
\nwith the Panchayat Union Council and not with the Village Panchayat.  Even in
\nthe absence of the permission from the second respondent, the petitioner company
\nis entitled to proceed with the setting up of the poultry farm.  The first
\nrespondent is not vested with the power to issue the impugned proceedings, dated
\n11.10.2010, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994,
\ncancelling the order passed by the second respondent, granting the necessary
\npermission to the petitioner company to establish the poultry farm and the feed
\nmanufacturing mill.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner company had also
\nsubmitted that the consent order required for establishment of the poultry farm
\nand the feed manufacturing mill had been obtained from the Tamil Nadu Pollution
\nControl Board, on 24.03.2010,.  The necessary consent orders had also been
\nobtained from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to establish the poultry
\nfarm and the feed manufacturing mill, under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention
\nand Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, as well as under Section 21 of the Air
\n(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had
\nsubmitted that the impugned order of the District Collector-cum-Inspector of
\nPanchayats, Karur District, dated 11.10.2010, and the order of the Vice
\nPresident of Kodanthur Village Panchayat, Karur District, dated 4.10.2010, are
\nillegal and void, as they had been passed deliberately to subvert the interim
\norders passed by this Court, dated 21.10.2010, in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2010, in
\nW.P(MD).No.12948 of 2010 and in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2010, in W.P(MD).No.13105 of
\n2010. The said orders would amount to colourable exercise of power as they had
\nbeen passed contrary to the procedures established by law.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. It has also been stated that the impugned orders had been passed
\nwithout giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Company,
\nunder Clause 2 of Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994. The said
\norders are also inconsistent with Section 160 of the Act, as it is clear that
\neven without the permission of the Village Panchayat, the poultry farm and the
\nfeed manufacturing mill could be established.  Both the impugned orders had been
\npassed on wrong presumptions of the facts and the law.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t20. It has also been submitted that the building plan granted
\nin favour of the Petitioner Company cannot be cancelled, by any authority or
\nbody, on the ground that the establishment of the poultry farm and the feed
\nmanufacturing mill would cause pollution.  In the present case, both the
\nDistrict Collector, Karur District, as well as the Vice-President of Kodanthur
\nVillage Panchayat, had been swayed by the public opinion, even though, the Tamil
\nNadu Pollution Control Board, which is an expert body had given the green signal
\nto the Petitioner Company to go ahead with the establishment of the poultry
\nfarm, as well as the feed manufacturing mill.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company had
\nsubmitted that once the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had issued a consent
\norder for the establishment of a poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill,
\nthe other authorities and the local bodies, including the respondents in the
\npresent writ petitions, cannot have an objection against the establishment of
\nthe poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, stating that they would be
\ncausing pollution.  The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is the final
\nauthority, with regard to the matters relating to pollution, in spite of the
\nfact that the petitioner company had obtained all necessary orders from the
\nTamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, as well as the building permission from the
\nPresident of the Kodanthur Village Panchayat, on 05.04.2010.  The Vice-President
\nof the said Panchayat had passed the impugned proceedings, dated 04.10.2010,
\nstating that the building permission had been granted by the President of the
\nKodanthur Village Panchayat in favour of the petitioner company, for the
\nestablishment of the poultry farm, arbitrarily, without following the procedures
\nestablished by law.  In the said impugned order, it had also been stated that
\nthe matter relating to the granting of building permission to the petitioner
\ncompany had not been placed before the Panchayat council before the President
\nhad granted the said permission, on 05.04.2010.  It had also been stated in the
\nsaid proceedings that the establishment of the poultry farm would result in the
\ndegradation of ecology, resulting in unhygienic conditions prevailing in the
\narea concerned.  Therefore, the permission granted by the President of the
\nVillage Panchayat, on 05.04.2010, has been cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. It had also been submitted that the permission granted in favour of
\nthe Petitioner Company to establish the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing
\nmill is only a preliminary step.  Thereafter, it would be open to the
\nauthorities concerned to go into the issues relating to pollution, if it is
\nfound to be necessary.  Neither the District Collector, who is the Inspector of
\nPanchayats, nor the Executive of the Village Panchayat would have the power to
\nprevent the Petitioner Company from taking steps to establish the poultry farm,
\nas well as the feed manufacturing mill, at the initial stage itself.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second and the third
\nrespondents, it has been stated that the President of Kodanthur Village
\nPanchayat was on leave, from 13.10.2010, due to illness.  Therefore, he had
\ndelegated the functions to the Vice-President, as per Section 48 of the Tamil
\nNadu Panchayats Act,1994, and in consonance with the Tamil Nadu Village
\nPanchayats (devolution and delegation of President’s Functions) Rules, 1999.
\nThe other averments and the allegations made by the Petitioner Company in the
\naffidavits filed in support of the Writ Petitions had been denied.\n<\/p>\n
\t 24. It had also been stated that the impugned orders had been passed
\nafter considering the public interest of the people, who are living in the
\nnearby villages.  In fact, more than seven Panchayats have passed resolutions
\nopposing the establishment of poultry farms.  The permission obtained by the
\nPetitioner Company through the order, dated 05.04.2010, is contrary to the
\nprovisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (building) Rules.  The approval granted
\nin favour of the Petitioner Company is against the resolution of the Panchayat,
\ndated 27.03.2010, and against the interests of the people at large, who are the
\nresidents of the nearby villages.  Since, the proposed poultry farm would cause
\npollution, adversely affecting the health of the general public, due to the
\nbreeding of mosquitoes and flies, leading to the spreading of diseases, the
\nsecond respondent had cancelled the order, dated 05.04.2010, by a resolution of
\nthe Village Panchayat, dated 01.10.2010.  The impugned order passed by the Vice-
\nPresident, dated 04.10.2010, is only a consequential order, and it was
\ncommunicated to the Petitioner Company and to the other officials concerned, on
\n21.10.2010.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second and the third
\nrespondents, in W.P.(MD) No.13105 of 2010, it has been stated that the second
\nrespondent Village Panchayat consists of 16 hamlets.  The petitioner company had
\npurchased nearly 75 acres of land, at Udaiyanpalayam, in Kodanthur Village
\n(South) which is located in the mist of the other villages coming under the
\nKodanthur Village Panchayat.  Even though the lands in question had been
\npurchased by the petitioner company for the purpose of carrying on agricultural
\nactivities, the petitioner company has proposed to establish a poultry farm and
\na feed manufacturing mill therein.  All the 16 hamlets are coming under the
\nKodanthur Village Panchayat, situated within 1 to 3 kilometers from the proposed
\npoultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill.  The starting of the poultry farm
\nwould cause serious problems of pollution and it would induce the breeding of
\nmosquitoes and flies,  due to which, a number of diseases would be spread
\namongst the inhabitants of the area concerned.  Thus, the establishment of the
\npoultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill would pose serious health hazards,
\nnot only to the people of the area, but also to the animals in the locality.
\nThe establishment of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill in the
\nlocality concerned would also cause nuisance to the villagers due to the foul
\nsmell emanating from the farm and the mill. It would also lead to environmental
\ndegradation in the said area due to air and water pollution.\n<\/p>\n
\t26. It has also been stated that more than 2000 people are residing in the
\nvillages coming under the Kodanthur Village Panchayat.  The petitioner company
\nis proposing to establish a poultry farm with more than ten lakhs birds and
\ntherefore, it would cause serious harm to the ecological balance prevailing in
\nthe nearby villages.  Knowing about the serious damages that could be caused by
\nthe establishment of a poultry farm, more than seven Panchayats in and around
\nthe Kodanthur Village Panchayat had passed resolutions opposing the
\nestablishment of a poultry farm in the areas coming under their jurisdiction.
\nMore over, in the meeting held, on 02.10.2010, at the Grama Sabha Panchayat, all
\nthe residents of the Village Panchayat had participated and had raised their
\nobjections against the establishment of the poultry farm, at Udaiyanpalayam.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t27. Further, the petitioner company had admitted, during the peace
\ncommittee meeting, held on 04.10.2010, that they are going to sink massive bore
\nwells by drilling for more than a thousand feet.  If such borewells are allowed
\nto be sunk, it would lead to the drying up of the available water resources in
\nand around the Kodanthur Village, resulting in water scarcity, even for drinking
\npurposes.  It would also seriously affect the agricultural activities in the
\narea concerned, including the rearing of cattle.  Further, the establishment of
\nthe poultry farm and the  feed manufacturing mill, at Udaiyanpalayam, would
\ncause serious water pollution in the Amaravathi river, which is running within a
\ndistance of one kilometer from the area in question, at Moolathurai.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. It has also been stated that the Kodanthur Village Panchayat has the
\npower and the authority to refuse the grant of building plan. Even if such
\napproval had been granted, it could be cancelled by the Village Panchayat
\nconcerned, if sufficient reasons are existing for such cancellation.\n<\/p>\n
\t29. It has also been stated that a Writ Appeal had already been filed
\nagainst the order passed by this Court, on 05.07.2010, in W.P.No.8812 of 2010.
\nNo notice had been issued to the petitioner company before the cancellation of
\nthe earlier order granted in its favour, as it was an illegal order.  Further,
\nthe first respondent is empowered to suspend or cancel any resolution passed,
\norder issued or licence or permission granted under Section 202 of the Tamil
\nNadu Panchayats Act, 1994.  In such circumstances, the writ petition filed by
\nthe petitioner company, in W.P.No.13105 of 2010, is devoid of merits and
\ntherefore, it is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t30. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of
\nthe respondents and in view of the records available before this Court and on
\nconsidering the decisions cited, this Court is of the considered view that the
\npetitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as
\nprayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition.  Even though the
\nTamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had granted its consent in view of the
\nrelevant provisions of the  Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
\n1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Village
\nPanchayat concerned has to grant its approval for the establishment of the
\npoultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, especially, when it involves the
\nissues relating to the health and well-being of the residents of the nearby
\nareas.  Even though the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board have given its
\nconsent for the establishment of the poultry farm, as well as the feed
\nmanufacturing mill, the local Village Panchayat would have the authority to
\nconsider the aspects relating to the nuisance, that could be caused by the
\nestablishment of such a farm or a mill, and the issues relating to the health
\nhazards that may be caused to the people at large, as well as to the animals and
\nthe degradation of the environment, in general.  Even though the petitioner
\ncompany may have the Fundamental Right to establish the poultry farm and the
\nfeed manufacturing mill, to carry on its business, it could be curtailed by
\ncertain reasonable restrictions enforced by the State.  Even though the Karur-
\nParamathi Panchayat Union had given its consent through its resolution, dated
\n16.04.2010, permitting the petitioner company to set up the poultry farm and the
\nfeed manufacturing mill, it would be necessary for the petitioner company to
\nobtain the consent of the local Village Panchayat, as provided under the Tamil
\nNadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and the Rules framed thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
\t31. It is also noted that no resolution had been passed in the Kodanthur
\nVillage Panchayat, approving the building plan and the granting of the
\npermission to establish the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill.  Even
\nthough the President of the Kodanthur Village Panchayat had granted his
\napproval, by his  proceedings, dated 05.04.2010, the said proceedings had been
\ncancelled, by the resolution of the said Panchayat, dated 01.10.2010.  The said
\nresolution had not been challenged in the manner known to law.  Thereafter, the
\nVice-President of the Kodanthur Village Panchayat had issued an order, dated
\n04.10.2010, acting on behalf of the Village Panchayat, in the absence of the
\nPresident, as per the provisions of Section 48 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,
\n1994 and the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats
\n(Devolution and Delegation of the President’s Functions) Rules, 1999.\n<\/p>\n
\t32. From the records available before this Court, it is noted that a peace
\ncommittee meeting had been held, on 04.10.2010, wherein the adverse consequences
\nthat may arise following the establishment of the poultry farm, as well as the
\nfeed manufacturing mill, had been enumerated.  The petitioner company seems to
\nhave agreed to stop the constructions, till 25.10.2010.\n<\/p>\n
\t33. It is also noted that the resolutions had been passed by seven Village
\nPanchayats close to Kodanthur Village, to deny the permission to establish the
\npoultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill in their areas.  As per Section 160
\nof the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the necessary permission has to be
\nobtained from the Panchayat Union Council concerned to construct or establish
\nany factory, workshop or work place, in which, it is proposed to enjoy steam
\npower, water power or other mechanical power or electrical power or for
\ninstalling, in any such premises, any machinery or manufacturing plant.  Thus,
\nit is clear that the consent granted by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
\nfor the establishment of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill, is
\nnot final. The provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
\nAct, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, should be
\nread in consonance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
\nWhen the Village Panchayat had passed a resolution, on 27.03.2010, refusing to
\ngrant permission for the establishment of the poultry farm and the feed
\nmanufacturing mill, it cannot be rescinded by the President.\n<\/p>\n
\t34. It is also seen that Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,
\n1994, empowers the District Collector, who is the Inspector of Panchayats, to
\nsuspend or cancel any resolution passed, the order issued, or licence or
\npermission granted or to prohibit the doing of any act, if a resolution passed,
\nor an order, licence or permission granted had not been legally done.  It also
\nempowers the District Collector to prohibit the doing of any act, which is about
\nto be done or which is being done pursuant to such a resolution or order,
\nlicence or permission if the execution of which is likely to cause danger to
\nhuman life, health or safety.  Therefore, it is clear that the Tamil Nadu
\nPollution Control Board is not the sole repository of power, with regard to all
\nmatters relating to pollution.  If the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is the
\nfinal authority relating to matters of pollution and its effects on people and
\nthe environment, Section 160 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, would be
\nrendered redundant or otiose.  Even though it had been claimed that no notice
\nhad been issued to the petitioner company before the impugned order had been
\npassed, it would be appropriate for the petitioner company to avail the
\nalternative remedy available, under the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu
\nPanchayats Act, 1994, including the remedy of revision provided under Section
\n219 of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t35. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had
\nrelied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:\n<\/p>\n
\t36. 1. In Action Council, Poovathode and Others v. Benny Abraham and
\nOthers (2002) 9 Supreme Court Cases 493, it had been held as follows:
\n\t“3. It is no doubt true that the entrepreneur had obtained the necessary
\n“no-objection certificate” from the environmental authorities.  But the
\nPanchayat, on consideration of the matter, was of the opinion that the decision
\nnot to grant permission to instal the metal crusher machine would be in the
\ninterest of the public and it ascribed 4 reasons as to why the Panchayat comes
\nto the conclusion that it would not be in the public interest to grant such
\nlicence.  All those reasons, to our mind, are germane to the issue and cannot be
\nheld to be arbitrary or fictitious.”\n<\/p>\n
\t37. 2. In Kings India Chemicals Corporation Limited v. The District
\nCollector<\/a> cum Inspector of Panchayats, 2010 (1) CWC 319, it had been held that,
\nunder Section 160 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, and the relevant rules
\nmade under the said Act, the Village Panchayat is empowered to reconsider the
\nresolution passed earlier.\n<\/p>\n
\t38. 3. In Manjapara Grama Panchayat v. State of Kerala, CDJ 1996 Kerala
\nHigh Court 222, it had been held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“It is evident from Section 166(1) of the Act it is the mandatory duty of
\nevery village Panchayat to control unauthorised building construction and land
\nutilisation.  Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer has a duty to consult
\nthe Panchayat. Therefore, the mere fact that Revenue Divisional Officer has
\ngiven permission does not mean that Panchayat has no legal right to object to
\nthe conversion of paddy field.”\n<\/p>\n
\t39. It had also been noted that the District Collector had passed the
\nimpugned proceedings, dated 11.10.2010, stating that on inspection of the
\nrecords of the Kodanthur Village Panchayat, it had been found that no resolution
\nhad been passed in the Kodanthur Village Panchayat, in favour of the petitioner
\ncompany for the establishment of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing
\nmill.  It had also been stated that the approval of the building plan for the
\nconstruction of the building had not been granted in accordance with Government
\nrules framed for the said purpose.  As such, the first respondent had rejected
\nthe permission granted to the petitioner company for the establishment of the
\npoultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill to be established, at
\nUdaiyanpalayam, in Karur District.\n<\/p>\n
\t40. From the records available before this Court, it is seen that the
\nimpugned orders had been passed taking into consideration the public interest of
\nthose who are residing in the vicinity of the area concerned and carrying on the
\nagricultural activities.  Only based on the representations made by the
\nvillagers belonging to the villages in the area concerned, the first and the
\nthird respondents, in W.P.(MD) No.13105 of 2010, had passed the impugned orders
\nrejecting the building plan and the permission granted in favour of the
\npetitioner company for the construction of the buildings.\n<\/p>\n
\t41. It is also seen that the petitioner company is not in a position to
\nshow that the apprehensions of the people of the villages concerned are ill-
\nfounded.  Even though an order, dated 11.10.2010, had been passed by the first
\nrespondent and an order had been passed by the third respondent, on 04.10.2010,
\nwithout issuing any notice, such orders need not be set aside, in view of the
\nfact that the building permission had been granted by the President of the
\nKodanthur Village Panchayat, arbitrarily, without following the procedures
\nestablished by law.\n<\/p>\n
\t42. As seen from the provisions of Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu
\nPanchayats Act, 1994, the District Collector, Karur District, who is the
\nInspector of Panchayats, has the power to suspend or cancel any resolution
\npassed, order issued or licence or permission granted, if such   resolution,
\norder or licence has not been legally passed, issued or granted, or if it is
\nfound that it is not in exercise of powers conferred by the Act or any other
\nlaw, or an abuse of such powers or if it is considered to be otherwise
\nundesirable, or if it would cause danger to the human life or health or safety.
\nIn such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned
\norder of the first respondent, dated 11.10.2010 and the impugned order of the
\nthird respondent in the writ petition, in W.P.No.13105 of 2010, dated
\n04.10.2010. Therefore, the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. However, in
\nview of the fact that no notice had been issued to the petitioner company before
\nthe impugned order had been passed and no opportunity had been given to the
\npetitioner company to put forth its views, it would be appropriate for the first
\nrespondent to hold an enquiry, after giving sufficient notice to the petitioner
\ncompany and to such other persons, authorities and local bodies as the first
\nrespondent may consider to be necessary, and pass appropriate orders thereon, on
\nmerits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date
\nof receipt of a copy of this order.  If the petitioner company is in a position
\nto  convince the first respondent that no pollution or health hazard or
\necological imbalance or degradation of the environment would be caused, due to
\nthe establishment of the poultry farm and the feed manufacturing mill,  the
\npetitioner company may be permitted to establish the poultry farm and the feed
\nmanufacturing mill, at Udaiyanpalayam, as already proposed by the petitioner
\ncompany.\n<\/p>\n
srm<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The District Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayats,
\n  Karur District,   Karur.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M\/S.Supreme Poultry Private … vs The District Collector-Cum- on 3 December, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03\/12\/2010 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition (MD) No.12948 of 2010 and Writ Petition (MD) No.13105 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 2 and 1 of 2010 M\/s.Supreme Poultry Private Limited, Rep. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-128021","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.Supreme Poultry Private ... vs The District Collector-Cum- on 3 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Supreme Poultry Private ... vs The District Collector-Cum- on 3 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-03T13:42:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Supreme Poultry Private … vs The District Collector-Cum- on 3 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-03T13:42:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5832,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Supreme Poultry Private ... vs The District Collector-Cum- on 3 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-03T13:42:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Supreme Poultry Private … vs The District Collector-Cum- on 3 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S.Supreme Poultry Private ... vs The District Collector-Cum- on 3 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Supreme Poultry Private ... vs The District Collector-Cum- on 3 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-03T13:42:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Supreme Poultry Private … vs The District Collector-Cum- on 3 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-03T13:42:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010"},"wordCount":5832,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010","name":"M\/S.Supreme Poultry Private ... vs The District Collector-Cum- on 3 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-03T13:42:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-supreme-poultry-private-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-3-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Supreme Poultry Private … vs The District Collector-Cum- on 3 December, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128021","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=128021"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128021\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128021"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128021"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128021"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}