The Karnataka High Court in the case observed and has dismissed the public interest litigation, PIL moved wherein questioning the Deputy Commissioner’s order reserving 5 acres gomal land in Soraba Taluka, earmarked for village cattle, for establishment of Solid and Liquid Waste Disposal Unit.
The Division bench comprising of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit in the case observed that the gomal land can never be diverted to other larger public purposes like the one put in challenge.
Thus, there being absolutely no material on record to substantiate the argument that any provision of law is violated by diversion of the Government land for the purpose of waste management which in turn serves the interest of environment and ecology. The court stated that any venture of the kind would inevitably extract some price.
However, one has to see the quantum of the price qua the enormity of benefit that would accrue by virtue of the project in question. The petitioner in the plea argued before the court that earlier only 2 acres of the land was earmarked for the waste disposal unit.
Therefore, the impugned order was passed without asses ng environmental impact and the extent of 5 acres is too huge and that would affect the cattle of the rural public.
On the other hand, it has been submitted by the State before the court that the earlier 2 acres of land was found to be inadequate and thus, the area was expanded. Further, the court submitted that establishment of dry and wet waste management unit has enormous public interest that outweighs the arguable public interest in the petition.
The bench in the case observed and has agreed with the submission of the government and stated that the population growth is exponential and it causes expansion of the towns and settlements. Thus, this being the 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 and now a piece of 5 acres of land is earmarked for the establishment of a waste processing unit. Accordingly, the court dismissed the PIL.
The counsel, Advocate Deepashree D for Advocate Nagendra Naik appeared for the Petitioner. The counsel, AGA Niloufer Akbar represented the Respondents.
