MALLIKARJUNA, M/S. SRI. SHYLA POULTRY FARM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27th August 2013 passed by 2nd respondent as per Annexure 'B' and confirmed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Crl. R.P. No. 142/2013 vide order dated 21st November 2013. The petitioner is running Poultry Farming in Sy. No. 107/1 of Belavanor Village, Davanagere Taluk. The neighbouring villagers complained to the 2nd respondent stating that the Poultry Farming run by the petitioner is causing great nuisance and health hazard. In this connection, the 2nd respondent secured certain technical reports, held joint meeting of the villagers and the petitioner and other Poultry Farming owners and directed them to adopt scientific methods and to follow certain guidelines prescribed by the Pollution Control Board. Despite these meetings, letters and notices, the petitioner failed to comply the legal requirement. Consequently, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order on 27th August 2013 as per Annexure 'B', giving three months time to comply the directions issued earlier and also to shift the location of the Poultry Farming, failing which to cancel the licences issued to them.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by this impugned order at Annexure 'B', the petitioner and others filed Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 142/2013, 143/2013, 145/2013 and 146/2013 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Davanagere. By a common order dated 21st November 2013, the District Judge dismissed the Revision Petitions, vacated the interim order granted earlier and confirmed the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. C.H. Jadhav submits that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Revisional Court and also thereafter they have rectified the mistakes, complied the directions issued by the 2nd respondent, adopted scientific methods to prevent the nuisance on the Poultry Farming. In this connection, a fresh representation is also given to the 2nd respondent on 26th November 2013. If that is so, the 2nd respondent to consider the same in accordance with law. In the event of petitioner complying the necessary directions, guidelines and the legal requirement then the 2nd respondent may review the order passed by him, if so required. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed.