ORDER V.V.S. RAO, J. INTRODUCTION The residents living in villages, a short distance away to Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) filed these writ petitions complaining the negligent, illegal and unplanned method and manner of the disposal of Municipal Solid Wastes (MSWs) generated in municipal areas, be they corporations or municipalities. Their Plea is that the action taken or action proposed to be taken with the concurrence of the Andhra Pradesh Pol1ution Control Board (the Board, for brevity) contravenes the relevant statutes and the Rules made thereunder. The problem presented, in this batch of cases, appears to be in existence in village panchayats, municipal areas and metropolitan areas which are all subject to more or less the same law. Besides praying for enforcement of their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to a healthy environment, they seek a mandamus to the ULBs to discharge their duties in accordance with the law. 2. The delicate balance between two competing rights; right of individual to life with clean environment has to be given effect keeping in view the community interest which seeks to substantially curtail the individual right especially in the jurisprudence of municipal administration. The earlier view that the complicated issues involving the help of science and technology are subjected to limited judicial review no more holds good. The right to clean environment - air, water, land and surroundings - is a penumbral right without which the quality of life cannot be ensured under Article 21. Therefore whenever an issue of contravention of the laws intended to protect environment is brought before the Courts, it is the duty of the Courts to examine the issues in the light of the applicable law (Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal (1) (1987) 2 SCC 295 and Dhnnu Taluka Environment Project Group v. Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. (2). (1991) 2 SCC 539 Background facts WRIT PETITION No.16701 of 2007 3. The petitioner - a registered society; seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of Bhimavaram Municipality (Bhimavaram, for brevity) in establishing MSW compost yard in the land admeasuring Acs.14.56 in S.No.318/3 of Yenamadurru village, of Bhimavaram Mandal in West Godavari District as illegal and for a consequential order directing the Board not to grant permission to the municipality. 4. The case set up by the petitioner is as follows. 4. The case set up by the petitioner is as follows. Invoking the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the LA Act), the Government notified village site for establishing compost yard in Yenamadurru village. Under emergency provisions, possession was also taken from the land owners. The land is proposed for establishment of the municipal compost yard for dumping garbage of 150 (M.T.) per day. The land is at a distance of 1 1/¬2 KMs from the village. On the western, northern and southern sides of the village site, there are irrigation channels for providing ayacut to Acs.300.00 of agricultural lands, water for fish/prawn tanks besides being source of drinking water. The establishment of compost yard would result in contamination of irrigation channels and hazardous to health of the villagers. 5. Yanamadurru Gram Panchayat in their affidavit supports the case of the petitioner. For ready reference, we extract hereunder the relevant paragraphs from Panchayat's affidavit. I humbly submit that the population of the proposed 7th respondent Gram Panchayat is 6000 and the livelihood of the people of our Gram Panchayat is Agriculture and the lands in our Gram Panchayat are Canal irrigated fertile double Crop Wet Lands. I humbly submit that Bhimavaram Municipality proposed to establish a Municipal Solid Waste Compost Yard for Bhimavaram Municipality in an extent of Acs.15.56 in S.No.318/3 of our Gram Panchayat and in furtherance of the same the Revenue authorities, on the request of Bhimavaram Municipality, initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. ... ... I respectfully submit that there are irrigation canals on the Western, Southern and Northern sides of the proposed site and the same are the source of irrigation for Agricultural Lands in our Village. I humbly submit that due to the proposed compost yard, there will be contamination of drinking water. I humbly submit that if the waste matter is dumped in the proposed land, it would spoil the environment and would result in great hazard to the health of our Villagers and will be a source of spreading contagious diseases and the surroundings of the proposed compost yard will become an abode to the rats and eventually the same would result in loss of Crops. I humbly submit that due to proposed establishment of the compost yard the health of the Agriculture Laborers who attend to the Agriculture Work in the nearby land will be spoiled and if the same being so no persons would come for Agriculture operations to our Village. I humbly and respectfully bring to the kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court the following realities which have direct bearing on the issue involved in the matter: A. The distance between our Village i.e., Yenamadurru and the proposed compost yard is 1 km and the distance between Bhimavaram Municipal area and the proposed compost yard is nearly 7 kms. B. The sources of irrigation and drinking water will be adversely affected by the compost yard. C. There are irrigation channels on the southern, western and northern sides' of the land proposed for compost yard and if the same is permitted there will be closure of irrigation channels and drinking water will be contaminated. D. If the compost yard is permitted, the surrounding lands which are the only source of livelihood for the Villagers will be spoiled and the surrounding land will become useless. E The proposed compost yard in S.No.318/3 of our Village will be a source of health hazard to our Villagers. F. Other dry and non-agricultural waste lands are available within the limits of Bhimavaram Municipality and despite the same the compost yard is being established in our Village which is at a distance of 7 kms. 6. This Court, after issuing notice, passed interim orders on 16.11.2007 directing that no construction of compost yard shall be made in village site till further orders. 7. Bhimavaram Commissioner filed counter affidavit opposing with the following allegations. 6. This Court, after issuing notice, passed interim orders on 16.11.2007 directing that no construction of compost yard shall be made in village site till further orders. 7. Bhimavaram Commissioner filed counter affidavit opposing with the following allegations. As per the inspection/feasibility report of the District Medical & Health Officer (DMHO) and the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), the village site meets the prescribed standards for establishment of compost yard; the village site is far away from the village and does not cause air or water pollution nor affects drinking water sources; the Board issued authorization on 03.10.2007 imposing conditions like providing impermeable concrete floor, internal and peripheral drains and fencing the yard prohibiting entry of unauthorized persons and animals; municipality has already prepared estimates for taking up these works with the funds released by the Government under 12th Finance Commission; the report dated 04.1.2007 of the Deputy Director, Ground Water Department, Eluru reveals that there is no possibility of spoiling livelihood for villagers and surroundings of the proposed site in any manner and that the proposal was mooted to fulfil the statutory responsibility for providing compost yard. 8. The District Collector filed a separate counter affidavit from which the following aspects need to be noticed. Bhimavaram established in 1948 does not have compost yard to dispose of the garbage collected in the municipality in spite of efforts to acquire suitable site since 1970. The garbage generated was being dumped in various places adversely affecting public health. The Consumer Protection Council, Bhimavaram filed PIL case being W.P.No.19351 of 2006 seeking a direction to establish compost yard. By order dated 09.7.2007 High Court passed orders in the writ petition directing the municipality to establish licensed slaughter house and compost yard within the limits of municipality within a period of three months. The Revenue officials identified the land situated 5 KMs away from the town and far away from Yenamadurru village where there are no residential buildings or drinking water sources. 9. The DMHO also issued feasibility report as per the acquisition rules vide letter No.5818/EN -Sanitation/RHS/06, dated 06.12.2006. After obtaining permission from the Government and procuring compensation amount from Bhimavaram the acquisition proceedings were completed. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) passed award on 27.4.2007. 9. The DMHO also issued feasibility report as per the acquisition rules vide letter No.5818/EN -Sanitation/RHS/06, dated 06.12.2006. After obtaining permission from the Government and procuring compensation amount from Bhimavaram the acquisition proceedings were completed. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) passed award on 27.4.2007. As the average quantity of the garbage generated in the area is 50 to 70 MT per day, steps are initiated for establishment of Biomass Power Generation Plant as per G.O.Rt.No.1425, dated 16.12.1995, which requires setting up of such plant when garbage generated in the area is about 70 to 120 MT. The Site Clearance Committee (SCC) constituted for examining feasibility of setting up MSW disposal facilities also gave their opinion regarding suitability of the village site for the purpose. After taking over possession, the municipality started constructing compost yard as well as formation of road to the site spending about Rs.3.00 lakhs with the funds sanctioned by the 12th Finance Commission. 10. The Environmental Engineer, Eluru who is member of SCC filed counter affidavit on behalf of the Board with the following averments in brief. Bhimavaram made an application dated 12.12.2006 seeking authorization from the Board for establishing MPD facility. As requested by the fourth respondent, seven members of SCC inspected the proposed land on 27.12.2006 and found that it is suitable for setting up MSW disposal facilities. During the inspection the SCC noticed a small tank (Cheruvu) near the land. Some of the villagers visited Board's Regional Office and complained that water body near proposed site is a drinking water source. But the Village Secretary certified that it is not drinking water source and it is being used for irrigation purposes only. After the joint inspection by the SCC, the Environmental Engineer submitted report dated 29.1.2007 and 28.6.2007 to the Board with recommendation to consider the issue of authorization for the proposed site subject to certain conditions. In addition to saying so, the Environmental Engineer in paragraphs 7 and 9 states certain relevant things. For ready reference, we may quote these paragraphs below. I respectfully submit that the objections raised by the petitioner in their affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition are therefore devoid of any merit in the light of the aforesaid material placed before the Board, copies of which are filed herewith, and the observations of the Site Clearance Committee. I respectfully submit that the objections raised by the petitioner in their affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition are therefore devoid of any merit in the light of the aforesaid material placed before the Board, copies of which are filed herewith, and the observations of the Site Clearance Committee. The Board however hastens to add that even though the Authorisation is issued, if the Municipality concerned is not adhering to the landfill conditions as per the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 2000 the Board which will be constantly monitoring the pollution in the locality will certainly initiate action against the concerned. ... ... I respectfully submit that as afore stated the averments in para 5 of the affidavit are also untrue and untenable. The reference of specifications for landfill site in para 6 of the affidavit is wholly unnecessary and unwarranted as the same are not applicable to the instant cases. The wetlands referred to therein are not referable to agricultural lands. The allegations in para 7 of the affidavit are thoroughly incorrect and the allegation in the said paragraphs that the officials of the Board are influenced by Local Officers is baseless. I respectfully submit that the proposal of Bhimavaram Municipality to set up a compost plant and land filling facility at the proposed site do not require carrying out Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Public Consultation as per the EIA notification dated 14th Sep, 2006, issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. (emphasis supplied) W.P.No.32702 of 2010 11. This writ petition is filed by the Alluru Gram Panchayat (hereafter, Alluru). Their grievance is about the proposal to set up garbage dumping yard in the lands admeasuring Acs.20.55 comprised in various survey numbers of the Village. The two other writ petitions being W.P.Nos.1635 and 34229 of 2011 filed by the residents of Chintala and Alluru villages are connected with this writ petition. The background facts and contentions are the same. We therefore would refer to W.P.No.32702 of 2010, for pleadings. 12. Alluru assails the order dated 15.10.2010 of the District Collector alienating the land to Ongole municipality (now, corporation) and directing the Tahsildar, Kothapatnam to handover advance possession to the corporation. The land is government poramboke land. Half of it was proposed to be alienated to SEWA INDIA for construction of Rural Residential Public School for market value. 12. Alluru assails the order dated 15.10.2010 of the District Collector alienating the land to Ongole municipality (now, corporation) and directing the Tahsildar, Kothapatnam to handover advance possession to the corporation. The land is government poramboke land. Half of it was proposed to be alienated to SEWA INDIA for construction of Rural Residential Public School for market value. Proposals were also sent for alienating the other half to Markapur Police Officers Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Limited (Markapur society). In that context Alluru was consulted and it was resolved that construction of school does not cause inconvenience or harm to the public health and accordingly consent was given. In December, 2010 District Collector however proposed to give the land for establishment of garbage dumping yard. No notice was issued while proposing to alienating the land to the corporation which is contrary to the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act and the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Panchayat Act). Under the relevant Rules, District Collector has no power to direct Tahsildar to handover advance possession to the corporation without obtaining prior permission from the government. 13. Further case of Alluru is that Sections 93 and 94 of Panchayat Act empower a gram panchayat to prevent people from letting out drainage water out of the premises to ensure public health and maintain proper sanitation. The dumping yard now proposed would cause ill health to the people of the village and pollute water in Machalamma Kunta for development of which the government sanctioned an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- under Drought Prone Area Project watershed scheme. Kunta is being used by the people of Alluru and Chintala villages for providing water for animals. An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was also sanctioned under MP LADS to construct an inner well in Kunta. It was completed and water therefrom is being used for drinking purposes. The proposed dumping yard is at a distance of 200 metres from Alluru and when it is operational it would not be possible to bear the foul smell. Further 20 farmers of Alluru have fish tanks and are engaged in aqua culture in the lands comprised in S.Nos.432, 468 etc. When the government wanted to acquire these lands by paying heavy compensation, the villagers refused. A dumping yard would afflict the tanks with virus seriously damaging fish. Further 20 farmers of Alluru have fish tanks and are engaged in aqua culture in the lands comprised in S.Nos.432, 468 etc. When the government wanted to acquire these lands by paying heavy compensation, the villagers refused. A dumping yard would afflict the tanks with virus seriously damaging fish. Furthermore several people purchased lands in the vicinity and got permission from the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Ongole to convert the use of lands for non-agricultural purposes to convert into house sites where several middle class people want to construct houses. Besides this, way back in February, 2009 the District Collector directed the RDO, Ongole to take up INDIRAMMA housing programme for selected beneficiaries in the land admeasuring Acs.57.80 comprised in S.Nos.1l6/2B etc. Any dumping yard will have adversely affects this project. The government gave permission to M/s. Prakasam Airport Pvt. Ltd., for construction of Greenfield airport. The site is situated in Alluru and other villages in Kothapatnam MandaI. An extent of 1,600 acres was also acquired and, therefore, the establishment of any dumping yard is prohibited. There is also alternative land available near Guthikondavaripalem H/o. Koppolu village. If the dumping yard is established there, it would not cause ill health to the people. Villagers of Alluru and Chintala submitted representations in December, 2010 to the first respondent in vain. Alluru convened general body meeting on 20.12.2010 and passed resolution opposing the decision to establish dumping yard in Alluru limits. 14. The District Collector, Ongole filed counter affidavit on behalf of the Government, the CCLA, the RDO and the Tahsildar denying the proposal to alienate Alluru land in favour of the corporation. The salient aspects therein are as follows. Major portion of land proposed for alienation to the corporation (Acs.18.05) is not included in Nagarjuna Sagar Project local ayacut. It is a tail end area and therefore water was not supplied for the last twenty years and it is classified as government poramboke assessed waste dry (AWD) land. Therefore it was allotted for the purpose of transfer station to MSW in accordance with MSW Rules for which the Board issued authorization on 29.9.2011 valid upto 30.9.2012. As directed by the Board the area has to be fenced and tenders were finalized. The work is entrusted to the contractor for this purpose which is in progress. At present the corporation itself is collecting municipal waste from the houses in a segregated manner. As directed by the Board the area has to be fenced and tenders were finalized. The work is entrusted to the contractor for this purpose which is in progress. At present the corporation itself is collecting municipal waste from the houses in a segregated manner. The recyclable waste is sold to the traders and others bio-degradable waste will be shifted to the transit station. The government issued orders in G.O. Ms. No.236, dated 02.3.2009 and G.O. Ms. No.657, dated 12.11.2009 permitting M/s. PEEPEE Power Limited, Nellore to take municipal waste from the transit station which they do once in two or three days. 15. The land is allotted for the purpose of transit station of solid waste and land fill site in accordance with MSW Rules. Nallavagu and Pothuraju drains carry drainage water to the sea and do not affect agricultural operations as they are not irrigation channels. Machalamma Kunta is three feet deep and it cannot be construed as water body. The water is not used for human consumption. There is a separate scheme i.e., ground level service reservoir tank of 10,000 litres capacity for Chintala and water is to be supplied through pipelines from overhead service reservoir tank of Alluru. Hence there would not be contamination of water due to transit station of solid waste/scientific filling site. The Deputy Executive Engineer, RWS, Ongole also certified that the water tank near Chintala is not used for drinking purposes. The land in dispute is about 1/2KM away from the habitation clusters. Government after considering all aspects came to a conclusion that the allotment of land to Ongole corporation for exclusive use of transit operations would not result in any environmental pollution. Further before dumping at the site the solid waste is segregated and recyclable waste and biodegradable wastes are sold to needy people who use it for the purpose of manufacturing manure or for power generation. As it is only transit yard the Rules applicable for setting up of the land III stations would not be applicable. Submissions 16. Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, Senior Counsel appearing for Alluru Panchayat, M/s. S.V. Bhat and A.V. sesha Sai, counsel for villagers made the following submissions. Before sending alienation proposals to the government and passing orders for delivering advance possession, the Collector did not give notice to the gram panchayat. Submissions 16. Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, Senior Counsel appearing for Alluru Panchayat, M/s. S.V. Bhat and A.V. sesha Sai, counsel for villagers made the following submissions. Before sending alienation proposals to the government and passing orders for delivering advance possession, the Collector did not give notice to the gram panchayat. The gram panchayats passed resolutions against the proposal for establishment of MSW dump yard of the corporation/municipality and these were ignored by the government. The land chosen is situated near surface, water sources and would deprive the residents of the villages of using the same besides causing environmental pollution. Establishment of the dump yard is contrary to instructions 8, 9 and 10 of Schedule-III, and Schedule-II of MSW Rules as well as Sections 3, 6 and 25 of the EP Act. The selection of site itself is not in accordance with the guidelines. There is no rule enabling the Board to grant permission for compost yard and that the Board did not conduct any field verification before issuing authorization for compost yard. Insofar as Gngole is concerned false information was furnished that they obtained permission from gram panchayat even though no such permission was obtained. The residents of the gram panchayat have been ignored and gram panchayats are not allowed to discharge their duties. In establishing compost yard/land fill station/dump yard the municipality violated Section 163 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, in that they cannot undertake any activity outside municipal limits. There is alternative land available and the same was not considered by the corporation/municipality. 17. Mr. A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General, who appeared for Gngole corporation, made submissions covering various issues raised by the petitioners. The submissions are as follows. The writ petitions are not maintainable. None of the rights of the petitioners have been violated. Even if there is any dispute between panchayats and municipalities they have to be resolved under Section 273 of the Panchayat Act and Section 388 of the Municipalities Act. As the Board granted permission for establishment of a transit station for segregation and establishment of compost yard, the Rules relied on by the petitioners are not applicable. He relied on Dada Fire Works Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra 2005 (3) MahLJ 807 Sumit v. Payyannur Municipality 2004 (1) KLT 438 and an unreported judgment of Madras High Court in W.P.No.24243 of 2002. He relied on Dada Fire Works Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra 2005 (3) MahLJ 807 Sumit v. Payyannur Municipality 2004 (1) KLT 438 and an unreported judgment of Madras High Court in W.P.No.24243 of 2002. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Fertilizer & Chemicals Travancore Ltd v. Employees Association. (2004) 4 SCC 420 . 18. Mr.Y. Srinivasa Murthy, Standing Counsel would submit that the Board followed MSW Rules before granting authorization to Ongole for establishment of compost yard subject to various conditions. He would urge that even though for establishing compost yard also approval of the Board is necessary, the instructions in Schedule-II and Schedule-III of MSW Rules are not applicable for the purpose of establisllment of compost yard. Strict adherence is called for only when authorization is granted starting a land fill site. 19. In the light of the pleadings and rival submissions various issues that arise for consideration are taken up infra under separate headings. Vesting of land in Gram Panchayat 20. The Constitution (73rd) Amendment Act, 1992 introduced Part-IX therein. The intention was to confer constitutional status on the rural local bodies. Article 243G mandates the States to endow panchayats with all powers and authority to enable them to function as effective institutions of self-government and calls upon to entrust various matters in Eleventh Schedule to the Constitution to gram panchayats. Entry-2 thereof specifically deals with land improvement, implementation of land reforms, land consolidation and soil conservation. There are other entries which deal with drinking water, health and sanitation and all aspects regarding minor irrigation sources. Sections 45 and 46 of Panchayat Act enumerate the duties and powers of Gram Panchayat. These include such complex matters like resource planning at village level, environmental protection and economic upliftment to the people. 21. The Panchayat Act entrusts maintenance of cattle pounds (Section 52), public roads (Section 53) and collection of sewage (Section 54), the maintenance of irrigation works (Section 56), and management of ferries (Section 57) to gram panchayats. The important provision relevant for the purpose of consideration is Section 58 which reads as below. 21. The Panchayat Act entrusts maintenance of cattle pounds (Section 52), public roads (Section 53) and collection of sewage (Section 54), the maintenance of irrigation works (Section 56), and management of ferries (Section 57) to gram panchayats. The important provision relevant for the purpose of consideration is Section 58 which reads as below. Section 58 Certain Government porambokes to vest in Gram Panchayat, etc.:- (1) The following porambokes namely, grazing grounds, threshing floors, burning and burial grounds, cattle stands, cart-stands and topes, which are at the disposal of the Government and are not required by them for any specific purpose shall vest in the gram panchayat subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed. (2) The Government may, at any time by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, direct that any porambokes referred to in sub-section (1) shall cease to vest in the gram panchayat if it is required by them for any specific purpose and thereupon such porambokes shall vest in the Government. (3) The gram panchayat shall have power, subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed, to regulate the use of any other poramboke which is at the disposal of the Government, if the gram panchayat is authorized in that behalf by an order of the Government. (4) The gram panchayat may, subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed, plant trees on any poramboke the use of which is regulated by it under sub-section (3). Explanation: - If any question arises whether a land is a poramboke or not, for the purposes of this section, the question shall be referred in the Government whose derision thereon shall be final. 22. The said provision would show that certain communal and poramboke lands like grazing grounds, threshing floors, burning and burial grounds, cattle stands, cart stands, tanks and topes shall vest in the gram panchayat. If exercises absolute control over such poramboke lands subject to restrictions and control as may be prescribed by the Rules. Under sub-section (2) of Section 58, the State as a paramount owner of the land, roads, porambokes etc., can issue a notification directing that the porambokes referred to in sub-section (1) shall cease to vest in the gram panchayat. Such notification can be issued only when the poramboke is required by the Government for a specific purpose. Under sub-section (2) of Section 58, the State as a paramount owner of the land, roads, porambokes etc., can issue a notification directing that the porambokes referred to in sub-section (1) shall cease to vest in the gram panchayat. Such notification can be issued only when the poramboke is required by the Government for a specific purpose. The notification under Section 58(2) shall divest the gram panchayat of poramboke lands to vest in the State. That is the reason why whenever any land is sought to be used for a specific purpose or sought to be alienated to a private organization, the gram panchayat is always put on notice for their views. There is no dispute about this legal position. Thus unless a notification is issued by the Government divesting gram panchayats of any poramboke lands, there cannot be any use of panchayat land for any other purpose. Further, Section 58 of the Panchayat Act would reveal that it is only the grazing grounds, threshing floors, burning/burial grounds, cattle stands, carts, tanks and topes at the disposal of the Government that vest in the Gram Panchayat. All other lands which are not specifically mentioned in Section 58(1) shall continue to vest in the State/Government as a paramount owner. 23. Whether the land identified for compost yard at Yenamadurm and Allum villages fall within the categories of lands that vest in the respective Gram Panchayats? Insofar as Yenamadurru Gram Panchayat is concerned, the land was acquired by negotiations under the LA Act vide award No.2/2007-08, dated 27.4.2007 and the same was handed over to municipality. This is not denied. Therefore the question of Gram Panchayat claiming the land as having vested in them would not arise. But in the case of Allum Gram Panchayat, the Commissioner of Ongole admits that the land identified for setting up compost yard/land fill is classified as Kunta Poramboke land. In terms of Section 58 of the Panchayat Act, it certainly vests in the Gram Panchayat and unless there is a divesting notification by the Government, permission to set up compost yard could not have been granted. 24. In terms of Section 58 of the Panchayat Act, it certainly vests in the Gram Panchayat and unless there is a divesting notification by the Government, permission to set up compost yard could not have been granted. 24. The learned Advocate General would however submit that the dispute between a local authority and one or more other local authorities arising under the provisions of the Panchayat Act or the Municipalities Act can be decided by the Government; the petitioners did not raise any such dispute before the Government and, therefore, the matter can be considered at a different level. To that extent he is correct in view of Section 273(1) of the Panchayat Act and under Section 388(1) of the Municipalities Act. But we are afraid, referring the dispute between the Panchayats exercising powers and discharging duties under the Panchayat Act with the constitutional backing and the municipalities or corporations exercising the power under relevant law made to give effect to Part-IX A of the Constitution, would serve no purpose. The counter affidavits would show that these schemes for setting up compost yard/land fill site are taken up partially or fully with the State/Central funding. Government would therefore - it can be assumed - be more interested to push through the schemes than shelving them on account of the dispute raised by the residents of the panchayats. Therefore, the problem solving procedure referred to herein may not give adequate redressal to the petitioners and their cause cannot be turned down on that ground. 25. Accordingly we hold that insofar as Yenamadurru panchayat is concerned, they cannot have any grievance if the land admeasuring Acs.14.56 in S.No.318/3 is acquired and handed over to the municipality for establishing compost yard/land fill. But in the case of Alluru Gram Panchayat, admittedly the land being Kunta Poramboke vesting in the Panchayat and there could not have been any order by the Government directing the District Collector to give advance possession to Gram Panchayat-without there being a notification under Section 58(2) of the Panchayat Act divesting Gram Panchayat of Kunta Poramboke which by law vests in Gram Panchayat. 26. The municipal administration is vested in the Municipal 'Council constituted under Section 5 of the Municipalities Act. 26. The municipal administration is vested in the Municipal 'Council constituted under Section 5 of the Municipalities Act. Chapter I of Part V enumerates duties of municipalities like water supply, provision of public drainage etc., and as required by Section 164 of the Municipalities Act, the Council has to make adequate arrangements for sweeping and cleaning of the streets and removal of sweepings (garbage), filth, carcasses of animals from the private premises, and daily removal of rubbish from dust-bins and private premises. As per Sections 164(c) and (d) of the Municipalities Act every Municipal Council shall have to make arrangements to provide depots for the deposit of filth, rubbish-and carcasses of animals, covered vehicles for removal of filth, dust-bins for temporary deposit of rubbish and also undertake steps for proper utilization of sweepings, rubbish or filth for preparation of compost and sale. Section 166 of the Municipalities Act prohibits any person from deposit of rubbish or filth in any street or any unoccupied ground alongside any street or any public quarry, jetty or landing place or on the bank of a water course or tank. It is very interesting that in doing• all this, the Municipal Council is barred from undertaking any works beyond the limit of municipality without proper sanction of the Government (Section 163 of the Municipalities Act). Admittedly there is no sanction permitting Bhimavaram to establish a compost yard/land fill in Yenamadurru Gram Panchayat. No such sanction or permission granted by the Government is placed before this Court. 27. A Municipal Corporation (other than Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation or GHMC, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam) is constituted under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1994 (1994 Act). But the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (1955 Act) are made applicable by reference (Section 14 of 1994 Act). The provisions relating to all aspects, except those which are specifically provided in 1994 Act, are the same as in 1955 Act. Chapter II contains the duties and powers or authorities of the corporation. Section 112(3) of 1955 Act makes it obligatory for the corporation to make adequate provisions for the collection, removal, treatment and disposal of sewage, offensive matter and rubbish, and take steps for the preparation of compost manure. Chapter II contains the duties and powers or authorities of the corporation. Section 112(3) of 1955 Act makes it obligatory for the corporation to make adequate provisions for the collection, removal, treatment and disposal of sewage, offensive matter and rubbish, and take steps for the preparation of compost manure. Chapter XIV (Sections 480 to 572) of 1955 Act contains sanitary provisions dealing with scavenging and cleansing, disposal carcasses of animals, regulation of public bathing, factories and maintenance of markets and slaughter houses, sale of food articles outside markets, licence for butchers, prevention or spread of infectious diseases and disposal of the dead. 28. The term "offensive matter" is defined in Section 2(38) of the 1955 Act as including filth, sewage, dust, house sweeping, kitchen or stable refuse, pieces of broken glass or pottery-debris and waste paper etc. Section 481 confers ownership on the corporation of all these collected by municipal servants or contractors and casts a duty on the corporation under Section 112 for scavenging and cleansing. Section 482 requires the commissioner of the corporation to provide and appoint places for temporary deposit and final disposal of the refuse or garbage collected from municipal corporation with least practicable nuisance. The corporation is constituted by a notification published in the official gazette delineating the limits of city as defined in Section 2(6) which means the area so declared by the State Government, in respect of which GHMC is constituted. The same is the case in respect of a corporation constituted for other cities under 1994 Act or special Acts. Thus the corporation is under the duty to manage its sanitation only within its limits and is not required to do so with reference to the solid waste collected from other areas nor can it establish the places for disposal in the area outside its limits. This is made clear by Section 480 read with Sections 481 and 482 which are to the effect that the commissioner shall make arrangements for collection of garbage in the city and provide places in the city for disposal with least nuisance. Therefore whenever a municipality or a municipal corporation proposes to establish a garbage dump yard/compost yard/land fill site, outside its territorial limits, those persons who are likely to be affected by such attempts of the municipal bodies can seek appropriate remedy before a court of law. Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste 29. Therefore whenever a municipality or a municipal corporation proposes to establish a garbage dump yard/compost yard/land fill site, outside its territorial limits, those persons who are likely to be affected by such attempts of the municipal bodies can seek appropriate remedy before a court of law. Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste 29. The participation of India at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm (June, 1972), triggered enactment of three environment legislations, namely, the Water (Prevention 67 and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Water Act), the Air (Prevention •and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (the Air Act) and the Environment (Protection) Act; 1986 (the Environment Act). The Environment Act defines "environment" and "environmental pollution" in broadest terms. These encompass the water, air, land and interrelationship among them. Any activity which results in the presence of any solid, liquid or gaseous polluting substances beyond permissible level is considered as pollutants. To prevent and control the introduction of such environmental pollutants, the Environment Act provides for making Rules by the Central Government, prescribing' standards of quality of environment and steps to prevent, control and abate environmental pollution. Deterrent provisions are in place to deal with violations and violators including the Government departments. 30. In spite of the legal regime, the management of municipal water turned from bad to worse. A PIL case was filed before 1986 raising questions in relation to pollution caused by garbage. The Supreme Court appointed Sri Asim Burman to look into all aspects of urban solid waste management in particular in the four areas, namely, (1) examine the existing practices and to suggest hygienic processing and waste-disposal practices and proven technologies on the basis or economic feasibility and safety which the Corporations/Government may directly or indirectly adopt or sponsor; (2) examine 2nd suggest ways to improve conditions in the formal and informal sector for promoting eco-friendly sorting, collection, transportation, disposal, recycling and reuse; (3) to review municipal bye-laws and the powers of local bodies and regional planning authorities and suggest necessary modifications to ensure effective budgeting, financing, administration, monitoring and compliance; and (4) examine and formulate standards and regulations for management of urban solid waste, and set time-frame within which the authorities shall be bound to implement the same (Al Mitra H. Patel v. Union of India (6) (1998) 2 SCC 416 : AIR 1998 SC 993 . After Burman submitted the report, the Central Government notified the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 2000 (the MSW Rules). The implementation was not on the expected lines. Again when the matter was listed, the Supreme Court noticed the situation obtaining in large number of ULBs as follows. The local authorities are constituted for providing services to the citizens - not merely to provide employment to a few of its inhabitants. Tolerating filth, while not taking action against the lethargic and inefficient workforce for fear of annoying them, is un-understandable and impermissible. Non-accountability has possibly led to lack of effort on the part of the employees concerned. They are perhaps sanguine in their belief that non-performance is not frowned upon by the Government or by the heads of the organisations and no harm will befall them. ... ... Domestic garbage and sewage is a large contributor of solid waste. The drainage system in a city is intended to cope and deal with household effluent. This is so in a planned city. But when a large number of inhabitants live in unauthorised colonies, with no proper means of dealing with the domestic effluents, or in slums with no care for hygiene the problem becomes more complex. Further, the Supreme Court observed as follows. We believe it is not for this Court to direct as to how the municipal authorities should carry out their functions and resolve difficulties in regard to the management of solid waste. The Court, in fact, is ill equipped to do so. Without doubt the governmental agencies including the local authorities have all the powers of the State to take action and ensure that the city remains clean. They have only to wake up and act. The Court should, however, direct that the local authorities, Government and all statutory authorities must discharge their statutory duties and obligations in keeping the city at least reasonably clean. (emphasis supplied) 31. Referring to Dr. B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India (7) (1996) 2 SCC 594 the Supreme Court gave various directions to New Delhi Municipal Council to take expeditions steps for management of MSW. As noticed herein above, an important direction issued to the municipal bodies was setting up of adequate number of compost plants to deal with the problem. Referring to Dr. B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India (7) (1996) 2 SCC 594 the Supreme Court gave various directions to New Delhi Municipal Council to take expeditions steps for management of MSW. As noticed herein above, an important direction issued to the municipal bodies was setting up of adequate number of compost plants to deal with the problem. Thus every ULB is required in law and by Constitution to strictly adhere to MSW Rules in managing wastes generated within their jurisdiction. The dumping of garbage on both sides of the road or in abandoned mines or empty spaces is certainly objectionable and all the officers responsible for such garbage dumping are liable to penalties. We may point out the officials of Bhimavaram and Ongole seem to have followed the directions issued by the Supreme Court and also MSW Rules more in breach. As observed by the Supreme Court in another case, "Where Directive Principles have found statutory expression in Do’s and Don’t the Court will not sit idly by and allow municipal government to become a statutory mockery. ...The officers in charge and even the elected representatives will have to face the penalty of the law if what the Constitution and follow-up legislation direct them to do are defied or denied wrongfully. The wages of violation is punishment, corporate and personal." (Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichan (8) (1980) 4 SCC 162 = AIR 1980 SC 1622 MSW Rules 32. In addition to the statutes casting non-negotiable duty on ULBs, the law also requires them to recycle and/or facilitate bio-degradability of municipal waste in ways more than one. We may, by the use of the following graphic, point out the nature and recyclability of wastes generated in ULB. MSW Bio-degradable Non-bio-degradable Compost yard Recyclable Non-recyclable Inert waste Hazardous waste 33. MSW contains organic as well as inorganic matter. The former is biodegradable and the latter is mostly non-bio-degradable but a part of it is recyclable. Extensive research has gone into these aspects and the following general composition of MSW is agreed by experts. MSW Bio-degradable Non-bio-degradable Compost yard Recyclable Non-recyclable Inert waste Hazardous waste 33. MSW contains organic as well as inorganic matter. The former is biodegradable and the latter is mostly non-bio-degradable but a part of it is recyclable. Extensive research has gone into these aspects and the following general composition of MSW is agreed by experts. Bio-degradable matter 50% Glass 4% Plastics 3% Paper 5% Metals 1 % Leather and rubber 1 % Rags 5% Household hazardous 1 % Inert materials 30% ORDER V.V.S. RAO, J. INTRODUCTION The residents living in villages, a short distance away to Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) filed these writ petitions complaining the negligent, illegal and unplanned method and manner of the disposal of Municipal Solid Wastes (MSWs) generated in municipal areas, be they corporations or municipalities. Their Plea is that the action taken or action proposed to be taken with the concurrence of the Andhra Pradesh Pol1ution Control Board (the Board, for brevity) contravenes the relevant statutes and the Rules made thereunder. The problem presented, in this batch of cases, appears to be in existence in village panchayats, municipal areas and metropolitan areas which are all subject to more or less the same law. Besides praying for enforcement of their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to a healthy environment, they seek a mandamus to the ULBs to discharge their duties in accordance with the law. 2. The delicate balance between two competing rights; right of individual to life with clean environment has to be given effect keeping in view the community interest which seeks to substantially curtail the individual right especially in the jurisprudence of municipal administration. The earlier view that the complicated issues involving the help of science and technology are subjected to limited judicial review no more holds good. The right to clean environment - air, water, land and surroundings - is a penumbral right without which the quality of life cannot be ensured under Article 21. Therefore whenever an issue of contravention of the laws intended to protect environment is brought before the Courts, it is the duty of the Courts to examine the issues in the light of the applicable law (Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal (1) (1987) 2 SCC 295 and Dhnnu Taluka Environment Project Group v. Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. (2). Ltd. (2). (1991) 2 SCC 539 Background facts WRIT PETITION No.16701 of 2007 3. The petitioner - a registered society; seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of Bhimavaram Municipality (Bhimavaram, for brevity) in establishing MSW compost yard in the land admeasuring Acs.14.56 in S.No.318/3 of Yenamadurru village, of Bhimavaram Mandal in West Godavari District as illegal and for a consequential order directing the Board not to grant permission to the municipality. 4. The case set up by the petitioner is as follows. Invoking the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the LA Act), the Government notified village site for establishing compost yard in Yenamadurru village. Under emergency provisions, possession was also taken from the land owners. The land is proposed for establishment of the municipal compost yard for dumping garbage of 150 (M.T.) per day. The land is at a distance of 1 1/¬2 KMs from the village. On the western, northern and southern sides of the village site, there are irrigation channels for providing ayacut to Acs.300.00 of agricultural lands, water for fish/prawn tanks besides being source of drinking water. The establishment of compost yard would result in contamination of irrigation channels and hazardous to health of the villagers. 5. Yanamadurru Gram Panchayat in their affidavit supports the case of the petitioner. For ready reference, we extract hereunder the relevant paragraphs from Panchayat's affidavit. I humbly submit that the population of the proposed 7th respondent Gram Panchayat is 6000 and the livelihood of the people of our Gram Panchayat is Agriculture and the lands in our Gram Panchayat are Canal irrigated fertile double Crop Wet Lands. I humbly submit that Bhimavaram Municipality proposed to establish a Municipal Solid Waste Compost Yard for Bhimavaram Municipality in an extent of Acs.15.56 in S.No.318/3 of our Gram Panchayat and in furtherance of the same the Revenue authorities, on the request of Bhimavaram Municipality, initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. ... ... I respectfully submit that there are irrigation canals on the Western, Southern and Northern sides of the proposed site and the same are the source of irrigation for Agricultural Lands in our Village. I humbly submit that due to the proposed compost yard, there will be contamination of drinking water. ... ... I respectfully submit that there are irrigation canals on the Western, Southern and Northern sides of the proposed site and the same are the source of irrigation for Agricultural Lands in our Village. I humbly submit that due to the proposed compost yard, there will be contamination of drinking water. I humbly submit that if the waste matter is dumped in the proposed land, it would spoil the environment and would result in great hazard to the health of our Villagers and will be a source of spreading contagious diseases and the surroundings of the proposed compost yard will become an abode to the rats and eventually the same would result in loss of Crops. I humbly submit that due to proposed establishment of the compost yard the health of the Agriculture Laborers who attend to the Agriculture Work in the nearby land will be spoiled and if the same being so no persons would come for Agriculture operations to our Village. I humbly and respectfully bring to the kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court the following realities which have direct bearing on the issue involved in the matter: A. The distance between our Village i.e., Yenamadurru and the proposed compost yard is 1 km and the distance between Bhimavaram Municipal area and the proposed compost yard is nearly 7 kms. B. The sources of irrigation and drinking water will be adversely affected by the compost yard. C. There are irrigation channels on the southern, western and northern sides' of the land proposed for compost yard and if the same is permitted there will be closure of irrigation channels and drinking water will be contaminated. D. If the compost yard is permitted, the surrounding lands which are the only source of livelihood for the Villagers will be spoiled and the surrounding land will become useless. E The proposed compost yard in S.No.318/3 of our Village will be a source of health hazard to our Villagers. F. Other dry and non-agricultural waste lands are available within the limits of Bhimavaram Municipality and despite the same the compost yard is being established in our Village which is at a distance of 7 kms. 6. This Court, after issuing notice, passed interim orders on 16.11.2007 directing that no construction of compost yard shall be made in village site till further orders. 7. 6. This Court, after issuing notice, passed interim orders on 16.11.2007 directing that no construction of compost yard shall be made in village site till further orders. 7. Bhimavaram Commissioner filed counter affidavit opposing with the following allegations. As per the inspection/feasibility report of the District Medical & Health Officer (DMHO) and the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), the village site meets the prescribed standards for establishment of compost yard; the village site is far away from the village and does not cause air or water pollution nor affects drinking water sources; the Board issued authorization on 03.10.2007 imposing conditions like providing impermeable concrete floor, internal and peripheral drains and fencing the yard prohibiting entry of unauthorized persons and animals; municipality has already prepared estimates for taking up these works with the funds released by the Government under 12th Finance Commission; the report dated 04.1.2007 of the Deputy Director, Ground Water Department, Eluru reveals that there is no possibility of spoiling livelihood for villagers and surroundings of the proposed site in any manner and that the proposal was mooted to fulfil the statutory responsibility for providing compost yard. 8. The District Collector filed a separate counter affidavit from which the following aspects need to be noticed. Bhimavaram established in 1948 does not have compost yard to dispose of the garbage collected in the municipality in spite of efforts to acquire suitable site since 1970. The garbage generated was being dumped in various places adversely affecting public health. The Consumer Protection Council, Bhimavaram filed PIL case being W.P.No.19351 of 2006 seeking a direction to establish compost yard. By order dated 09.7.2007 High Court passed orders in the writ petition directing the municipality to establish licensed slaughter house and compost yard within the limits of municipality within a period of three months. The Revenue officials identified the land situated 5 KMs away from the town and far away from Yenamadurru village where there are no residential buildings or drinking water sources. 9. The DMHO also issued feasibility report as per the acquisition rules vide letter No.5818/EN -Sanitation/RHS/06, dated 06.12.2006. After obtaining permission from the Government and procuring compensation amount from Bhimavaram the acquisition proceedings were completed. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) passed award on 27.4.2007. 9. The DMHO also issued feasibility report as per the acquisition rules vide letter No.5818/EN -Sanitation/RHS/06, dated 06.12.2006. After obtaining permission from the Government and procuring compensation amount from Bhimavaram the acquisition proceedings were completed. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) passed award on 27.4.2007. As the average quantity of the garbage generated in the area is 50 to 70 MT per day, steps are initiated for establishment of Biomass Power Generation Plant as per G.O.Rt.No.1425, dated 16.12.1995, which requires setting up of such plant when garbage generated in the area is about 70 to 120 MT. The Site Clearance Committee (SCC) constituted for examining feasibility of setting up MSW disposal facilities also gave their opinion regarding suitability of the village site for the purpose. After taking over possession, the municipality started constructing compost yard as well as formation of road to the site spending about Rs.3.00 lakhs with the funds sanctioned by the 12th Finance Commission. 10. The Environmental Engineer, Eluru who is member of SCC filed counter affidavit on behalf of the Board with the following averments in brief. Bhimavaram made an application dated 12.12.2006 seeking authorization from the Board for establishing MPD facility. As requested by the fourth respondent, seven members of SCC inspected the proposed land on 27.12.2006 and found that it is suitable for setting up MSW disposal facilities. During the inspection the SCC noticed a small tank (Cheruvu) near the land. Some of the villagers visited Board's Regional Office and complained that water body near proposed site is a drinking water source. But the Village Secretary certified that it is not drinking water source and it is being used for irrigation purposes only. After the joint inspection by the SCC, the Environmental Engineer submitted report dated 29.1.2007 and 28.6.2007 to the Board with recommendation to consider the issue of authorization for the proposed site subject to certain conditions. In addition to saying so, the Environmental Engineer in paragraphs 7 and 9 states certain relevant things. For ready reference, we may quote these paragraphs below. I respectfully submit that the objections raised by the petitioner in their affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition are therefore devoid of any merit in the light of the aforesaid material placed before the Board, copies of which are filed herewith, and the observations of the Site Clearance Committee. I respectfully submit that the objections raised by the petitioner in their affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition are therefore devoid of any merit in the light of the aforesaid material placed before the Board, copies of which are filed herewith, and the observations of the Site Clearance Committee. The Board however hastens to add that even though the Authorisation is issued, if the Municipality concerned is not adhering to the landfill conditions as per the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 2000 the Board which will be constantly monitoring the pollution in the locality will certainly initiate action against the concerned. ... ... I respectfully submit that as afore stated the averments in para 5 of the affidavit are also untrue and untenable. The reference of specifications for landfill site in para 6 of the affidavit is wholly unnecessary and unwarranted as the same are not applicable to the instant cases. The wetlands referred to therein are not referable to agricultural lands. The allegations in para 7 of the affidavit are thoroughly incorrect and the allegation in the said paragraphs that the officials of the Board are influenced by Local Officers is baseless. I respectfully submit that the proposal of Bhimavaram Municipality to set up a compost plant and land filling facility at the proposed site do not require carrying out Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Public Consultation as per the EIA notification dated 14th Sep, 2006, issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. (emphasis supplied) W.P.No.32702 of 2010 11. This writ petition is filed by the Alluru Gram Panchayat (hereafter, Alluru). Their grievance is about the proposal to set up garbage dumping yard in the lands admeasuring Acs.20.55 comprised in various survey numbers of the Village. The two other writ petitions being W.P.Nos.1635 and 34229 of 2011 filed by the residents of Chintala and Alluru villages are connected with this writ petition. The background facts and contentions are the same. We therefore would refer to W.P.No.32702 of 2010, for pleadings. 12. Alluru assails the order dated 15.10.2010 of the District Collector alienating the land to Ongole municipality (now, corporation) and directing the Tahsildar, Kothapatnam to handover advance possession to the corporation. The land is government poramboke land. Half of it was proposed to be alienated to SEWA INDIA for construction of Rural Residential Public School for market value. 12. Alluru assails the order dated 15.10.2010 of the District Collector alienating the land to Ongole municipality (now, corporation) and directing the Tahsildar, Kothapatnam to handover advance possession to the corporation. The land is government poramboke land. Half of it was proposed to be alienated to SEWA INDIA for construction of Rural Residential Public School for market value. Proposals were also sent for alienating the other half to Markapur Police Officers Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Limited (Markapur society). In that context Alluru was consulted and it was resolved that construction of school does not cause inconvenience or harm to the public health and accordingly consent was given. In December, 2010 District Collector however proposed to give the land for establishment of garbage dumping yard. No notice was issued while proposing to alienating the land to the corporation which is contrary to the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act and the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Panchayat Act). Under the relevant Rules, District Collector has no power to direct Tahsildar to handover advance possession to the corporation without obtaining prior permission from the government. 13. Further case of Alluru is that Sections 93 and 94 of Panchayat Act empower a gram panchayat to prevent people from letting out drainage water out of the premises to ensure public health and maintain proper sanitation. The dumping yard now proposed would cause ill health to the people of the village and pollute water in Machalamma Kunta for development of which the government sanctioned an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- under Drought Prone Area Project watershed scheme. Kunta is being used by the people of Alluru and Chintala villages for providing water for animals. An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was also sanctioned under MP LADS to construct an inner well in Kunta. It was completed and water therefrom is being used for drinking purposes. The proposed dumping yard is at a distance of 200 metres from Alluru and when it is operational it would not be possible to bear the foul smell. Further 20 farmers of Alluru have fish tanks and are engaged in aqua culture in the lands comprised in S.Nos.432, 468 etc. When the government wanted to acquire these lands by paying heavy compensation, the villagers refused. A dumping yard would afflict the tanks with virus seriously damaging fish. Further 20 farmers of Alluru have fish tanks and are engaged in aqua culture in the lands comprised in S.Nos.432, 468 etc. When the government wanted to acquire these lands by paying heavy compensation, the villagers refused. A dumping yard would afflict the tanks with virus seriously damaging fish. Furthermore several people purchased lands in the vicinity and got permission from the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Ongole to convert the use of lands for non-agricultural purposes to convert into house sites where several middle class people want to construct houses. Besides this, way back in February, 2009 the District Collector directed the RDO, Ongole to take up INDIRAMMA housing programme for selected beneficiaries in the land admeasuring Acs.57.80 comprised in S.Nos.1l6/2B etc. Any dumping yard will have adversely affects this project. The government gave permission to M/s. Prakasam Airport Pvt. Ltd., for construction of Greenfield airport. The site is situated in Alluru and other villages in Kothapatnam MandaI. An extent of 1,600 acres was also acquired and, therefore, the establishment of any dumping yard is prohibited. There is also alternative land available near Guthikondavaripalem H/o. Koppolu village. If the dumping yard is established there, it would not cause ill health to the people. Villagers of Alluru and Chintala submitted representations in December, 2010 to the first respondent in vain. Alluru convened general body meeting on 20.12.2010 and passed resolution opposing the decision to establish dumping yard in Alluru limits. 14. The District Collector, Ongole filed counter affidavit on behalf of the Government, the CCLA, the RDO and the Tahsildar denying the proposal to alienate Alluru land in favour of the corporation. The salient aspects therein are as follows. Major portion of land proposed for alienation to the corporation (Acs.18.05) is not included in Nagarjuna Sagar Project local ayacut. It is a tail end area and therefore water was not supplied for the last twenty years and it is classified as government poramboke assessed waste dry (AWD) land. Therefore it was allotted for the purpose of transfer station to MSW in accordance with MSW Rules for which the Board issued authorization on 29.9.2011 valid upto 30.9.2012. As directed by the Board the area has to be fenced and tenders were finalized. The work is entrusted to the contractor for this purpose which is in progress. At present the corporation itself is collecting municipal waste from the houses in a segregated manner. As directed by the Board the area has to be fenced and tenders were finalized. The work is entrusted to the contractor for this purpose which is in progress. At present the corporation itself is collecting municipal waste from the houses in a segregated manner. The recyclable waste is sold to the traders and others bio-degradable waste will be shifted to the transit station. The government issued orders in G.O. Ms. No.236, dated 02.3.2009 and G.O. Ms. No.657, dated 12.11.2009 permitting M/s. PEEPEE Power Limited, Nellore to take municipal waste from the transit station which they do once in two or three days. 15. The land is allotted for the purpose of transit station of solid waste and land fill site in accordance with MSW Rules. Nallavagu and Pothuraju drains carry drainage water to the sea and do not affect agricultural operations as they are not irrigation channels. Machalamma Kunta is three feet deep and it cannot be construed as water body. The water is not used for human consumption. There is a separate scheme i.e., ground level service reservoir tank of 10,000 litres capacity for Chintala and water is to be supplied through pipelines from overhead service reservoir tank of Alluru. Hence there would not be contamination of water due to transit station of solid waste/scientific filling site. The Deputy Executive Engineer, RWS, Ongole also certified that the water tank near Chintala is not used for drinking purposes. The land in dispute is about 1/2KM away from the habitation clusters. Government after considering all aspects came to a conclusion that the allotment of land to Ongole corporation for exclusive use of transit operations would not result in any environmental pollution. Further before dumping at the site the solid waste is segregated and recyclable waste and biodegradable wastes are sold to needy people who use it for the purpose of manufacturing manure or for power generation. As it is only transit yard the Rules applicable for setting up of the land III stations would not be applicable. Submissions 16. Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, Senior Counsel appearing for Alluru Panchayat, M/s. S.V. Bhat and A.V. sesha Sai, counsel for villagers made the following submissions. Before sending alienation proposals to the government and passing orders for delivering advance possession, the Collector did not give notice to the gram panchayat. Submissions 16. Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, Senior Counsel appearing for Alluru Panchayat, M/s. S.V. Bhat and A.V. sesha Sai, counsel for villagers made the following submissions. Before sending alienation proposals to the government and passing orders for delivering advance possession, the Collector did not give notice to the gram panchayat. The gram panchayats passed resolutions against the proposal for establishment of MSW dump yard of the corporation/municipality and these were ignored by the government. The land chosen is situated near surface, water sources and would deprive the residents of the villages of using the same besides causing environmental pollution. Establishment of the dump yard is contrary to instructions 8, 9 and 10 of Schedule-III, and Schedule-II of MSW Rules as well as Sections 3, 6 and 25 of the EP Act. The selection of site itself is not in accordance with the guidelines. There is no rule enabling the Board to grant permission for compost yard and that the Board did not conduct any field verification before issuing authorization for compost yard. Insofar as Gngole is concerned false information was furnished that they obtained permission from gram panchayat even though no such permission was obtained. The residents of the gram panchayat have been ignored and gram panchayats are not allowed to discharge their duties. In establishing compost yard/land fill station/dump yard the municipality violated Section 163 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, in that they cannot undertake any activity outside municipal limits. There is alternative land available and the same was not considered by the corporation/municipality. 17. Mr. A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General, who appeared for Gngole corporation, made submissions covering various issues raised by the petitioners. The submissions are as follows. The writ petitions are not maintainable. None of the rights of the petitioners have been violated. Even if there is any dispute between panchayats and municipalities they have to be resolved under Section 273 of the Panchayat Act and Section 388 of the Municipalities Act. As the Board granted permission for establishment of a transit station for segregation and establishment of compost yard, the Rules relied on by the petitioners are not applicable. He relied on Dada Fire Works Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra 2005 (3) MahLJ 807 Sumit v. Payyannur Municipality 2004 (1) KLT 438 and an unreported judgment of Madras High Court in W.P.No.24243 of 2002. He relied on Dada Fire Works Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra 2005 (3) MahLJ 807 Sumit v. Payyannur Municipality 2004 (1) KLT 438 and an unreported judgment of Madras High Court in W.P.No.24243 of 2002. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Fertilizer & Chemicals Travancore Ltd v. Employees Association. (2004) 4 SCC 420 . 18. Mr.Y. Srinivasa Murthy, Standing Counsel would submit that the Board followed MSW Rules before granting authorization to Ongole for establishment of compost yard subject to various conditions. He would urge that even though for establishing compost yard also approval of the Board is necessary, the instructions in Schedule-II and Schedule-III of MSW Rules are not applicable for the purpose of establisllment of compost yard. Strict adherence is called for only when authorization is granted starting a land fill site. 19. In the light of the pleadings and rival submissions various issues that arise for consideration are taken up infra under separate headings. Vesting of land in Gram Panchayat 20. The Constitution (73rd) Amendment Act, 1992 introduced Part-IX therein. The intention was to confer constitutional status on the rural local bodies. Article 243G mandates the States to endow panchayats with all powers and authority to enable them to function as effective institutions of self-government and calls upon to entrust various matters in Eleventh Schedule to the Constitution to gram panchayats. Entry-2 thereof specifically deals with land improvement, implementation of land reforms, land consolidation and soil conservation. There are other entries which deal with drinking water, health and sanitation and all aspects regarding minor irrigation sources. Sections 45 and 46 of Panchayat Act enumerate the duties and powers of Gram Panchayat. These include such complex matters like resource planning at village level, environmental protection and economic upliftment to the people. 21. The Panchayat Act entrusts maintenance of cattle pounds (Section 52), public roads (Section 53) and collection of sewage (Section 54), the maintenance of irrigation works (Section 56), and management of ferries (Section 57) to gram panchayats. The important provision relevant for the purpose of consideration is Section 58 which reads as below. 21. The Panchayat Act entrusts maintenance of cattle pounds (Section 52), public roads (Section 53) and collection of sewage (Section 54), the maintenance of irrigation works (Section 56), and management of ferries (Section 57) to gram panchayats. The important provision relevant for the purpose of consideration is Section 58 which reads as below. Section 58 Certain Government porambokes to vest in Gram Panchayat, etc.:- (1) The following porambokes namely, grazing grounds, threshing floors, burning and burial grounds, cattle stands, cart-stands and topes, which are at the disposal of the Government and are not required by them for any specific purpose shall vest in the gram panchayat subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed. (2) The Government may, at any time by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, direct that any porambokes referred to in sub-section (1) shall cease to vest in the gram panchayat if it is required by them for any specific purpose and thereupon such porambokes shall vest in the Government. (3) The gram panchayat shall have power, subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed, to regulate the use of any other poramboke which is at the disposal of the Government, if the gram panchayat is authorized in that behalf by an order of the Government. (4) The gram panchayat may, subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed, plant trees on any poramboke the use of which is regulated by it under sub-section (3). Explanation: - If any question arises whether a land is a poramboke or not, for the purposes of this section, the question shall be referred in the Government whose derision thereon shall be final. 22. The said provision would show that certain communal and poramboke lands like grazing grounds, threshing floors, burning and burial grounds, cattle stands, cart stands, tanks and topes shall vest in the gram panchayat. If exercises absolute control over such poramboke lands subject to restrictions and control as may be prescribed by the Rules. Under sub-section (2) of Section 58, the State as a paramount owner of the land, roads, porambokes etc., can issue a notification directing that the porambokes referred to in sub-section (1) shall cease to vest in the gram panchayat. Such notification can be issued only when the poramboke is required by the Government for a specific purpose. Under sub-section (2) of Section 58, the State as a paramount owner of the land, roads, porambokes etc., can issue a notification directing that the porambokes referred to in sub-section (1) shall cease to vest in the gram panchayat. Such notification can be issued only when the poramboke is required by the Government for a specific purpose. The notification under Section 58(2) shall divest the gram panchayat of poramboke lands to vest in the State. That is the reason why whenever any land is sought to be used for a specific purpose or sought to be alienated to a private organization, the gram panchayat is always put on notice for their views. There is no dispute about this legal position. Thus unless a notification is issued by the Government divesting gram panchayats of any poramboke lands, there cannot be any use of panchayat land for any other purpose. Further, Section 58 of the Panchayat Act would reveal that it is only the grazing grounds, threshing floors, burning/burial grounds, cattle stands, carts, tanks and topes at the disposal of the Government that vest in the Gram Panchayat. All other lands which are not specifically mentioned in Section 58(1) shall continue to vest in the State/Government as a paramount owner. 23. Whether the land identified for compost yard at Yenamadurm and Allum villages fall within the categories of lands that vest in the respective Gram Panchayats? Insofar as Yenamadurru Gram Panchayat is concerned, the land was acquired by negotiations under the LA Act vide award No.2/2007-08, dated 27.4.2007 and the same was handed over to municipality. This is not denied. Therefore the question of Gram Panchayat claiming the land as having vested in them would not arise. But in the case of Allum Gram Panchayat, the Commissioner of Ongole admits that the land identified for setting up compost yard/land fill is classified as Kunta Poramboke land. In terms of Section 58 of the Panchayat Act, it certainly vests in the Gram Panchayat and unless there is a divesting notification by the Government, permission to set up compost yard could not have been granted. 24. In terms of Section 58 of the Panchayat Act, it certainly vests in the Gram Panchayat and unless there is a divesting notification by the Government, permission to set up compost yard could not have been granted. 24. The learned Advocate General would however submit that the dispute between a local authority and one or more other local authorities arising under the provisions of the Panchayat Act or the Municipalities Act can be decided by the Government; the petitioners did not raise any such dispute before the Government and, therefore, the matter can be considered at a different level. To that extent he is correct in view of Section 273(1) of the Panchayat Act and under Section 388(1) of the Municipalities Act. But we are afraid, referring the dispute between the Panchayats exercising powers and discharging duties under the Panchayat Act with the constitutional backing and the municipalities or corporations exercising the power under relevant law made to give effect to Part-IX A of the Constitution, would serve no purpose. The counter affidavits would show that these schemes for setting up compost yard/land fill site are taken up partially or fully with the State/Central funding. Government would therefore - it can be assumed - be more interested to push through the schemes than shelving them on account of the dispute raised by the residents of the panchayats. Therefore, the problem solving procedure referred to herein may not give adequate redressal to the petitioners and their cause cannot be turned down on that ground. 25. Accordingly we hold that insofar as Yenamadurru panchayat is concerned, they cannot have any grievance if the land admeasuring Acs.14.56 in S.No.318/3 is acquired and handed over to the municipality for establishing compost yard/land fill. But in the case of Alluru Gram Panchayat, admittedly the land being Kunta Poramboke vesting in the Panchayat and there could not have been any order by the Government directing the District Collector to give advance possession to Gram Panchayat-without there being a notification under Section 58(2) of the Panchayat Act divesting Gram Panchayat of Kunta Poramboke which by law vests in Gram Panchayat. 26. The municipal administration is vested in the Municipal 'Council constituted under Section 5 of the Municipalities Act. 26. The municipal administration is vested in the Municipal 'Council constituted under Section 5 of the Municipalities Act. Chapter I of Part V enumerates duties of municipalities like water supply, provision of public drainage etc., and as required by Section 164 of the Municipalities Act, the Council has to make adequate arrangements for sweeping and cleaning of the streets and removal of sweepings (garbage), filth, carcasses of animals from the private premises, and daily removal of rubbish from dust-bins and private premises. As per Sections 164(c) and (d) of the Municipalities Act every Municipal Council shall have to make arrangements to provide depots for the deposit of filth, rubbish-and carcasses of animals, covered vehicles for removal of filth, dust-bins for temporary deposit of rubbish and also undertake steps for proper utilization of sweepings, rubbish or filth for preparation of compost and sale. Section 166 of the Municipalities Act prohibits any person from deposit of rubbish or filth in any street or any unoccupied ground alongside any street or any public quarry, jetty or landing place or on the bank of a water course or tank. It is very interesting that in doing• all this, the Municipal Council is barred from undertaking any works beyond the limit of municipality without proper sanction of the Government (Section 163 of the Municipalities Act). Admittedly there is no sanction permitting Bhimavaram to establish a compost yard/land fill in Yenamadurru Gram Panchayat. No such sanction or permission granted by the Government is placed before this Court. 27. A Municipal Corporation (other than Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation or GHMC, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam) is constituted under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1994 (1994 Act). But the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (1955 Act) are made applicable by reference (Section 14 of 1994 Act). The provisions relating to all aspects, except those which are specifically provided in 1994 Act, are the same as in 1955 Act. Chapter II contains the duties and powers or authorities of the corporation. Section 112(3) of 1955 Act makes it obligatory for the corporation to make adequate provisions for the collection, removal, treatment and disposal of sewage, offensive matter and rubbish, and take steps for the preparation of compost manure. Chapter II contains the duties and powers or authorities of the corporation. Section 112(3) of 1955 Act makes it obligatory for the corporation to make adequate provisions for the collection, removal, treatment and disposal of sewage, offensive matter and rubbish, and take steps for the preparation of compost manure. Chapter XIV (Sections 480 to 572) of 1955 Act contains sanitary provisions dealing with scavenging and cleansing, disposal carcasses of animals, regulation of public bathing, factories and maintenance of markets and slaughter houses, sale of food articles outside markets, licence for butchers, prevention or spread of infectious diseases and disposal of the dead. 28. The term "offensive matter" is defined in Section 2(38) of the 1955 Act as including filth, sewage, dust, house sweeping, kitchen or stable refuse, pieces of broken glass or pottery-debris and waste paper etc. Section 481 confers ownership on the corporation of all these collected by municipal servants or contractors and casts a duty on the corporation under Section 112 for scavenging and cleansing. Section 482 requires the commissioner of the corporation to provide and appoint places for temporary deposit and final disposal of the refuse or garbage collected from municipal corporation with least practicable nuisance. The corporation is constituted by a notification published in the official gazette delineating the limits of city as defined in Section 2(6) which means the area so declared by the State Government, in respect of which GHMC is constituted. The same is the case in respect of a corporation constituted for other cities under 1994 Act or special Acts. Thus the corporation is under the duty to manage its sanitation only within its limits and is not required to do so with reference to the solid waste collected from other areas nor can it establish the places for disposal in the area outside its limits. This is made clear by Section 480 read with Sections 481 and 482 which are to the effect that the commissioner shall make arrangements for collection of garbage in the city and provide places in the city for disposal with least nuisance. Therefore whenever a municipality or a municipal corporation proposes to establish a garbage dump yard/compost yard/land fill site, outside its territorial limits, those persons who are likely to be affected by such attempts of the municipal bodies can seek appropriate remedy before a court of law. Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste 29. Therefore whenever a municipality or a municipal corporation proposes to establish a garbage dump yard/compost yard/land fill site, outside its territorial limits, those persons who are likely to be affected by such attempts of the municipal bodies can seek appropriate remedy before a court of law. Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste 29. The participation of India at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm (June, 1972), triggered enactment of three environment legislations, namely, the Water (Prevention 67 and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Water Act), the Air (Prevention •and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (the Air Act) and the Environment (Protection) Act; 1986 (the Environment Act). The Environment Act defines "environment" and "environmental pollution" in broadest terms. These encompass the water, air, land and interrelationship among them. Any activity which results in the presence of any solid, liquid or gaseous polluting substances beyond permissible level is considered as pollutants. To prevent and control the introduction of such environmental pollutants, the Environment Act provides for making Rules by the Central Government, prescribing' standards of quality of environment and steps to prevent, control and abate environmental pollution. Deterrent provisions are in place to deal with violations and violators including the Government departments. 30. In spite of the legal regime, the management of municipal water turned from bad to worse. A PIL case was filed before 1986 raising questions in relation to pollution caused by garbage. The Supreme Court appointed Sri Asim Burman to look into all aspects of urban solid waste management in particular in the four areas, namely, (1) examine the existing practices and to suggest hygienic processing and waste-disposal practices and proven technologies on the basis or economic feasibility and safety which the Corporations/Government may directly or indirectly adopt or sponsor; (2) examine 2nd suggest ways to improve conditions in the formal and informal sector for promoting eco-friendly sorting, collection, transportation, disposal, recycling and reuse; (3) to review municipal bye-laws and the powers of local bodies and regional planning authorities and suggest necessary modifications to ensure effective budgeting, financing, administration, monitoring and compliance; and (4) examine and formulate standards and regulations for management of urban solid waste, and set time-frame within which the authorities shall be bound to implement the same (Al Mitra H. Patel v. Union of India (6) (1998) 2 SCC 416 : AIR 1998 SC 993 . After Burman submitted the report, the Central Government notified the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 2000 (the MSW Rules). The implementation was not on the expected lines. Again when the matter was listed, the Supreme Court noticed the situation obtaining in large number of ULBs as follows. The local authorities are constituted for providing services to the citizens - not merely to provide employment to a few of its inhabitants. Tolerating filth, while not taking action against the lethargic and inefficient workforce for fear of annoying them, is un-understandable and impermissible. Non-accountability has possibly led to lack of effort on the part of the employees concerned. They are perhaps sanguine in their belief that non-performance is not frowned upon by the Government or by the heads of the organisations and no harm will befall them. ... ... Domestic garbage and sewage is a large contributor of solid waste. The drainage system in a city is intended to cope and deal with household effluent. This is so in a planned city. But when a large number of inhabitants live in unauthorised colonies, with no proper means of dealing with the domestic effluents, or in slums with no care for hygiene the problem becomes more complex. Further, the Supreme Court observed as follows. We believe it is not for this Court to direct as to how the municipal authorities should carry out their functions and resolve difficulties in regard to the management of solid waste. The Court, in fact, is ill equipped to do so. Without doubt the governmental agencies including the local authorities have all the powers of the State to take action and ensure that the city remains clean. They have only to wake up and act. The Court should, however, direct that the local authorities, Government and all statutory authorities must discharge their statutory duties and obligations in keeping the city at least reasonably clean. (emphasis supplied) 31. Referring to Dr. B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India (7) (1996) 2 SCC 594 the Supreme Court gave various directions to New Delhi Municipal Council to take expeditions steps for management of MSW. As noticed herein above, an important direction issued to the municipal bodies was setting up of adequate number of compost plants to deal with the problem. Referring to Dr. B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India (7) (1996) 2 SCC 594 the Supreme Court gave various directions to New Delhi Municipal Council to take expeditions steps for management of MSW. As noticed herein above, an important direction issued to the municipal bodies was setting up of adequate number of compost plants to deal with the problem. Thus every ULB is required in law and by Constitution to strictly adhere to MSW Rules in managing wastes generated within their jurisdiction. The dumping of garbage on both sides of the road or in abandoned mines or empty spaces is certainly objectionable and all the officers responsible for such garbage dumping are liable to penalties. We may point out the officials of Bhimavaram and Ongole seem to have followed the directions issued by the Supreme Court and also MSW Rules more in breach. As observed by the Supreme Court in another case, "Where Directive Principles have found statutory expression in Do’s and Don’t the Court will not sit idly by and allow municipal government to become a statutory mockery. ...The officers in charge and even the elected representatives will have to face the penalty of the law if what the Constitution and follow-up legislation direct them to do are defied or denied wrongfully. The wages of violation is punishment, corporate and personal." (Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichan (8) (1980) 4 SCC 162 = AIR 1980 SC 1622 MSW Rules 32. In addition to the statutes casting non-negotiable duty on ULBs, the law also requires them to recycle and/or facilitate bio-degradability of municipal waste in ways more than one. We may, by the use of the following graphic, point out the nature and recyclability of wastes generated in ULB. MSW Bio-degradable Non-bio-degradable Compost yard Recyclable Non-recyclable Inert waste Hazardous waste 33. MSW contains organic as well as inorganic matter. The former is biodegradable and the latter is mostly non-bio-degradable but a part of it is recyclable. Extensive research has gone into these aspects and the following general composition of MSW is agreed by experts. Bio-degradable matter 50% Glass 4% Plastics 3% Paper 5% Metals 1 % Leather and rubber 1 % Rags 5% Household hazardous 1 % Inert materials 30%