VEERABHADRA GOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claiming to be public spirited citizens are invoking the PIL jurisdiction of this Court for calling in question Deputy Commissioner's order dtd. 31/1/2022 whereby, a small portion of 5 acres of land in Sy.No.59 of Kupaturu Village in Soraba Taluka has been reserved for the establishment of Solid and Liquid Waste Disposal Unit within the jurisdictional limits of 5th respondent - Panchayat.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that earlier, a piece of 2 acres in the very same survey number was earmarked for the said purpose within the jurisdictional limits of Kupaturu Grama Panchayat vide order dtd. 28/7/2020 and abruptly the said order having been withdrawn, the impugned order has been made without assessing environmental impact. The extent of 5 acres is too huge and that would affect the cattle of the rural public. He also draws attention of the Court to the requirement of a diversion order after notice to the public at large. Learned Additional Government Advocate appears for the official respondents and opposes the petition contending that the establishment of dry and wet waste management unit has enormous public interest that outweighs the arguable public interest in the petition. 2 acres of land earlier reserved for the purpose having been found to be inadequate, a larger extent in 5 acres is now allocated keeping in view the population growth and expansion of the towns in question. So contending she seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents. Having done that, we decline indulgence in the matter being broadly in agreement with the submission of learned Additional Government Advocate. There is force in her submission that the population growth is exponential and it causes expansion of the towns and settlements. That in turn would generate more dry and wet waste, humans being what they are. Therefore, in the considered opinion of the authorities, the 2 acres having been found inadequate, now a piece of 5 acres of land is earmarked for the establishment of waste processing unit. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that, the same is not in public interest. We are also convinced that the public interest in the project in question outweighs the arguable public interest in the petition.