SONIA PROTEINS YORK SHIRE WHITE PIGGERY FARM REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX, P BANUMATHI, VANDIYUR PANCHAYAT Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR; JOINT DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; PRESIDENT, VANDIYUR PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of a property comprised in R.S. No. 69/3A, Vandiyur BIT I Panchayat, Madurai District, measuring an extent of 43 cents. It is the case of the petitioner that during 1994, he had started an integrated Farm in the said land, which was classified as an agricultural land. She had kept poultry, turkey, yorkshire, white pigs in the Farm. According to the petitioner, the farm has been kept in a very hygienic conditions and the animals in the farm have been periodically checked by the Officials of the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Branch at Madurai and there has been no complaints according to her. The petitioner further states that she is the first person in Tamil Nadu producing Gobar Gas by utilizing pig wastes and the Madurai East Panchayat Union has sanctioned the gobar gas unit and has also given subsidy. The waste water generated is used in the fish pond and scientific treatment is adopted and the waste water has been converted into non-toxic. According to the petitioner, not even a drop of water is discharged from the pond. The husband of the petitioner is a Veterinary Surgeon and he also visits the Farm regularly.

(2.) According to the petitioner, on 19.05.2009, the Officials of the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Central University Laboratory, Chennai conducted a surprise inspection and even in that inspection, it was found negative for Swine Influenza. The Government of Tamil Nadu also run Piggery Farms in various places like Hosur, Tirunelveli, Kattupakkam, Pudukottai, Chettinad etc. It is the contention of the petitioner that the H1N1 virus is wrongly named as Swine Flu and people think the virus spreads through pigs. The Government of Tamil Nadu has also announced in the media that there is no nexus between H1N1 virus and the pigs. On 14.08.2009, the third respondent telephonically informed the petitioner to close down her farm. The petitioner has sent a representation in this regard to the first respondent on 18.08.2009, requesting him to direct the third respondent not to pressurize the petitioner to close down the farm. In spite of that there is threat from the third respondent, which has necessitated the petitioner to approach this Court with the aforesaid prayer.

(3.) This Court heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner.