[2023] 12 S.C.R. 271 : 2023 INSC 841
PANCHAYAT QURESHIAN AND ANOTHER
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1538-1539 of 2008)
SEPTEMBER 13, 2023
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI*.,
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND
MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
Issue for consideration: Whether the closure of the slaughter
house was effected after following due process of law.
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 –
Permanent Lok Adalat directed the Municipal Board to close
down the slaughter house for violation of rules and regulations,
causing pollution in the area – SPCB issued directions u/s.
33A of the 1974 Act for closure of the slaughter house – Order
of Permanent Lok Adalat challenged in writ petition – Writ
petition dismissed by the High Court:
Held: On 21.11.2003, the Supreme Court stayed the order of the
High Court – On 24.01.2004, during the course of an inspection
by the State Board, it was found that the slaughter house did
not have arrangements for treatment and disposal of effluents
and the waste water was being discharged without treatment
– In 2005, State Board approved the scheme for treatment of
the trade effluent – Commissioner was asked to intimate the
action taken for the construction of an effluent treatment plant –
However, on 03.01.2008, it was found that the effluent treatment
plant was incomplete, as a result of which the trade effluent
was not being properly treated – On 20.02.2008, the Supreme
Court modified its interim order of stay by permitting the SPCB
to take action against the polluting slaughter house in terms of
the statute – Thereafter, directions were issued u/s. 33A by the
State Board to the Commissioner to close down the operation of
the slaughter house – The issue as to whether the Permanent
Lok Adalat had the jurisdiction to direct closure of the slaughter
* Author
272 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
house has since been overtaken by subsequent events – The
SPCB has exercised its statutory powers u/s. 33A after finding,
upon inspection, that the waste generated from the slaughter
house was being discharged without adequate treatment resulting
in a violation of the applicable pollution parameters – In writ
petition, a direction was sought to provide water to the water
treatment plant and to stop the illegal slaughter on the streets
in the city of Tonk – The petitioners in the writ petition cannot be
oblivious of the fact that the slaughter house was closed as a
result of the failure to meet the prescribed pollution parameters
and since the waste which was generated from its operation was
being discharged without proper treatment – The closure is not
in pursuance of the direction of the Lok Adalat, but in exercise
of the statutory jurisdiction of the Rajasthan Pollution Control
Board – The petitioners are not entitled to any relief since the
closure of the slaughter house has been effected after following
due process of law in terms of the statutory powers conferred
on the Pollution Control Board u/s. 33 A of the Water Pollution
Act 1974. [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1538-1539 of
2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.10.2003 of the High Court of
Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCWP Nos.2823 and 2776 of 2003.
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 358 of 2011.
Saahil Gupta, Saeed Qadri, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., V. K.
Verma, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Kaushal Yadav, Nandlal Kumar Mishra,
Srilok Nath Rath, Ms. Reena Rao, Dr. Ajay Kumar, Ms. Shubhangi
Agarwal, Apurv S., Milind Kumar, Ashok Kumar Singh, Ansar Ahmad
Chaudhary, Irshad Ahmad, S.K. Verma, Mahesh Kasana, Ms. Aparna
Rohatgi Jain, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Chinmayee
Chandra, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, P.V. Yogeswaran, Mukul Singh,
Advs. for the Respondents.
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 273
PANCHAYAT QURESHIAN AND ANOTHER v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
1. The appeals1 arise from a judgment and order dated 15 October
2003 of a Division Bench at the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of
Judicature for Rajasthan. In addition, there is a writ petition2 under
Article 32 of the Constitution which has been heard with the civil
appeals.
2. The underlying facts are thus:
An application was submitted before the Permanent Lok Adalat at Tonk,
Rajasthan by the Sarva Seva Sansthan stating that a slaughter house
situated in proximity to National Highway No 12 was conducting its activities
in violation of rules and regulations, causing pollution in the area. On 2
April 2003, the Permanent Lok Adalat directed the Municipal Board Tonk to
close down the slaughter house within a month. The District Collector and
the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board were directed to ensure compliance.
3. The State Pollution Control Board3 issued directions under Section
33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 19744
for the closure of the slaughter house on the ground that it did not
have consent to operate and for absence of an authorization under
the Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 1988.
4. The order of the Permanent Lok Adalat was challenged by Panchayat
Qureshian in a writ petition5 before the Rajasthan High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition
by an order dated 15 October 2003.
5. A Special Leave Petition was instituted before this Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution for challenging the order of the High
Court. On 21 November 2003, this Court stayed the order of the
High Court. On 24 January 2004, during the course of an inspection
by the State Board, it was found that the slaughter house did not
have arrangements for treatment and disposal of effluents and the
1 Civil Appeal Nos 1538-1539 of 2008
2 Writ Petition (Civil) No 358 of 2011
3 “SPCB”
4 “Act of 1974”
5 SB Civil Writ Petition No 2823 of 2003
274 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
waste water was being discharged without treatment. Samples were
collected during the course of the inspection of the trade effluent.
The observed values were found to be in breach of permissible
limits prescribed under Schedule VI of the Environment (Protection)
Rules 1986.
6. On 27 April 2004, the State Board informed the Commissioner
of the Municipal Council that the slaughter house had not made
arrangements for treatment and disposal of effluents generated and
the waste was being discharged without treatment. The Commissioner
was directed to submit a feasibility report. On 13 September 2004, the
Commissioner of the Municipal Council submitted an application for
consent to operate under Sections 25/26 of the Act of 1974. On 21
September 2004, the Commissioner was called upon to show cause
why the application for obtaining consent should not be refused. The
State Board refused the application for consent by an order dated 2
November 2004 on the ground that the Commissioner had failed to
respond to the notice to show cause. The Commissioner thereafter
submitted an application on 9 March 2005 for obtaining consent to
operate under Sections 25/26 of the Act of 1974. On 2 May 2005, the
State Board directed the Commissioner to submit certain information.
Pursuant to it, the Commissioner responded on 6 June 2005. On 25
June 2005, the State Board approved the scheme for treatment of
the trade effluent subject to the condition that the prescribed norms
would be achieved and proper arrangements would be made to
utilize the treated water.
7. On 8 July 2005, the Commissioner requested the State Board to
approve the design of the effluent treatment plant for the treatment of
the trade effluent. On 11 August 2005, the State Board informed the
Commissioner that it had already approved the scheme presented
by the Commissioner. The Commissioner was however asked to
intimate the action taken for the construction of an effluent treatment
plant. Another inspection was conducted on 30 November 2005
following which the State Board by its letter dated 30 January 2006
refused consent to the slaughter house on the ground that the entire
effluent/waste water was being discharged on the nearby land without
treatment. On 13 September 2007, an inspection was carried out
which revealed that the effluent treatment plant was incomplete
and that untreated waste water was being discharged. Samples
were collected during the course of the inspection indicating that
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 275
PANCHAYAT QURESHIAN AND ANOTHER v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS
the trade effluent was beyond the prescribed polluting parameters.
This was brought to the notice of the Commissioner of the Municipal
Council on 27 October 2007. On 3 January 2008, it was found that
the effluent treatment plant was incomplete, as a result of which the
trade effluent was not being properly treated.
8. On 20 February 2008, this Court modified its interim order of stay
by permitting the SPCB to take action against the polluting slaughter
house in terms of the statute. On 29 March 2008, directions were
issued under Section 33A by the State Board to the Commissioner to
close down the operation of the slaughter house. On 17 September
2010, while hearing an interlocutory application filed by the Panchayat
Qureshian, this Court clarified that the interim order would not come
in the way of either the Municipal Council or the Pollution Control
Board taking action in accordance with law if there is a violation.
9. On 16 November 2011, an inspection was carried out by the State
Board during the course of which the representative of the Municipal
Council stated that the slaughter house had been closed on 13 March
2008 in compliance of the order of the State Board under Section
33A dated 29 March 2008.
10. The narration of facts would indicate that the civil appeals arose from
the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing a writ petition
which challenged the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat directing
closure of the slaughter house. The principal ground of challenge
was that the Permanent Lok Adalat would have no jurisdiction to
order a closure. During the pendency of the appeals, the order of
the Rajasthan High Court was initially stayed. However, subsequently
the order of stay was modified by permitting the statutory authority
to take action in accordance with law. The issue as to whether the
Permanent Lok Adalat had the jurisdiction to direct closure of the
slaughter house has since been overtaken by subsequent events.
The SPCB has exercised its statutory powers under Section 33A
after finding, upon inspection, that the waste generated from the
slaughter house was being discharged without adequate treatment
resulting in a violation of the applicable pollution parameters. As a
consequence of the directions, the slaughter house was directed to
be closed and upon inspection it was found to have been closed.
11. A writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed in
the above backdrop seeking a direction to the State of Rajasthan and
276 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
the Municipal Board of Tonk, the State Pollution Control Board and
other authorities to discharge their statutory duties under Schedule
XII of the Constitution and Section 98 of the Rajasthan Municipality
Act 1959. A direction has been sought to the respondents to provide
water to the water treatment plant and to stop the illegal slaughter
on the streets in the city of Tonk.
12. The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot obviate
the findings which have been arrived at by the statutory board in
the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 33A of the Act of 1974.
The petitioners in the writ petition cannot be oblivious of the fact that
the slaughter house was closed as a result of the failure to meet
the prescribed pollution parameters and since the waste which was
generated from its operation was being discharged without proper
treatment. The basis of the appeals which question the jurisdiction
of the Lok Adalat, directing a closure has since been overtaken by
the subsequent developments in terms of which the slaughter house
has been closed. The closure is not in pursuance of the direction
of the Lok Adalat, but in exercise of the statutory jurisdiction of the
Rajasthan Pollution Control Board.
13. For the reasons which have been indicated above, the petitioners
are not entitled to any relief since the closure of the slaughter house
has been effected after following due process of law in terms of the
statutory powers conferred on the Pollution Control Board under
Section 33 A of the Water Pollution Act 1974.
14. The civil appeals and the writ petition shall accordingly stand
dismissed for the reasons recorded above.
15. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Result of the case : Appeals and writ petition
dismissed.
