JUDGMENT : P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J. 1. The Petitioner, which is a Residents Welfare Association in Thangaiah Nagar in Tiruchirappalli has filed this Public Interest Litigation seeking to direct the Tiruchirappalli Corporation to shift the micro-compost plant from the 'park' area in Thangaiah Nagar in Ward No. 38 of the Tiruchirappalli Corporation to another place. 2. We have heard Mrs. T. Banumathy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. N.S. Karthikeyan, Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that at the time of filing of the Writ Petition, a micro-compost plant was under construction in the area earmarked for 'park' at Thangaiah Nagar in Ward No. 38 of Tiruchirappalli Corporation for the purpose of dumping solid waste without any consultation with the people of the locality, particularly when there is no elected representatives in the administration of the local body. It is also the case of the Petitioner that when an area is earmarked to be maintained as 'park', it could not be used by the Respondent for any other purpose. It is complained that construction of the said micro-compost plant at the aforesaid place was causing air pollution and serious health hazards to the residents in the neighborhood and the Educational Institutions there. In that factual backdrop, the Writ Petition has been filed seeking the aforesaid relief. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that in furtherance to the Scheme formulated by the Central Government under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, it had been decided by the Tiruchirappalli Corporation that instead of dumping the daily collected waste in a single plant or land fill site, the same should be disposed within the respective wards of the local body by adopting advanced technologies by opening a number of solid waste handling facilities called micro-compost plant so that such waste generated can be re-used in the respective areas. It is explained that due to rapid urbanization, there is scarcity of place in Tiruchirappalli Corporation limits and with great difficulty, a small portion of a larger extent of land belonging to the Tiruchirappalli Corporation that had been earmarked for 'park' has been identified for locating the micro-compost plant, for which the Petitioner cannot take any exception. It is explained that due to rapid urbanization, there is scarcity of place in Tiruchirappalli Corporation limits and with great difficulty, a small portion of a larger extent of land belonging to the Tiruchirappalli Corporation that had been earmarked for 'park' has been identified for locating the micro-compost plant, for which the Petitioner cannot take any exception. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M.G.M. Nagar Nala Munnetra Sangam -vs- Commissioner (Order dated 11.12.2018 in W.P. No. 12779) in which a similar contention that the place earmarked by local body for maintaining a 'park' could not be used for any other purpose has been rejected. It is also highlighted that it would be meaningless to shift the micro-compost plant to some other distant place as it would not serve the very purpose of establishing the same if it was far away from the place where waste generated had to be collected and disposed in a scientific manner. It is further added that the micro-compost plant has become functional during the pendency of this Writ Petition. 5. Having due regard to the aforesaid rival submissions, we had sought for a report from the District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Tiruchirappalli in respect of the aforesaid micro-compost plant and after inspection, a report dated 02.01.2019 has been submitted, in which it has been stated as follows:- "Trichy Corporation Thangaiya Nagar Micro Compost Centre – Ward No-38, Golden Rock Zone: 1. Micro Compost Centre (MCC) is provided with 24 tanks of 3.36 m x 1.96 m x 1.0 m each. 2. The Micro Compost Centre (MCC) is only partially covered. 3. Shredding machine provided. 4. The MCC is surrounded by Railway line, vacant land, Park site and Residential area. 5. Municipal solid wastes from Ward No. 38 are collected and segregated at the source as dry, wet and inert waste. Only wet waste collected are brought to the facility. 6. Only wet waste are then subject to grinding and the grounded waste are processed in the compost tank constructed for the composting process. The manure thus produced is distributed to the farmers for free of cost. 7. The dry waste such as paper, plastics, metals, and bottle etc., segregated at the source is sold to the recyclers. 8. The inert wastes which are not biodegradable and recyclable are sent to the cement factories. 9. The manure thus produced is distributed to the farmers for free of cost. 7. The dry waste such as paper, plastics, metals, and bottle etc., segregated at the source is sold to the recyclers. 8. The inert wastes which are not biodegradable and recyclable are sent to the cement factories. 9. The unit has constructed a leach pit for collection of leachate to be generated from compost process. 10. The MCC was in operation from 01.03.2018. It is respectfully submitted that the Rule No. 15(y) of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, states that setting up waste processing, treatment or disposal facility, if the volume of waste is exceeding five metric tons per day including sanitary landfills it is necessary to obtain Authorization from the respective State Pollution Control Board or the Pollution Control Committee, as the case may be. During inspection, it was noticed that only wet waste collected are brought to the facility. Quantity of wet waste processed is around 3.5 – 4.5 T/day. Since the said Micro Composting facility is processing less than 5 tons/day. Authorization from Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board is not required. No odour nuisance was noticed.” In the light of the aforesaid report, we find that the apprehension of the Petitioner that the location of the micro-compost plant would create air pollution and other health hazards is imaginary and unsubstantiated. The Petitioner has not been able to show that the location of the micro-compost plant is in violation of any statutory provision for which this Court could intervene in the matter. Further, as seen from the report of the Pollution Control Board, the volume of waste generated each day does not exceed 5 metric tonnes and as such, the necessity to obtain authorization from the State Pollution Control Board or the Pollution Control Committee under Rule 15(y) of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, does not arise in this case. The contention of the Petitioner that the residents of the locality had not been consulted for locating the micro-compost plant at that place cannot be countenanced when there is nothing to show that they had identified a suitable place in the same Ward for putting up the plant. The contention of the Petitioner that the residents of the locality had not been consulted for locating the micro-compost plant at that place cannot be countenanced when there is nothing to show that they had identified a suitable place in the same Ward for putting up the plant. It is needless to reiterate that it is not within the realm of the Courts to decide which area should be used or not used for the purpose of establishing the micro-compost plant in the absence of any statutory prohibition. There does not appear to be any infirmity in the decision-making process of the Respondents in locating the micro-compost plant warranting interference of this Court in the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950. However, it is made clear that the refusal of this Court to grant the aforesaid relief claimed by the Petitioner would not preclude the rights of the Petitioner to seek necessary relief from the concerned forum when there is any dereliction of duty by the concerned officials of the Tiruchirappalli Corporation in the maintenance of the micro-compost plant in a hygienic condition in strict compliance of the relevant laws and the norms stipulated by the Pollution Control Board in this regard. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with aforesaid observations. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.