COURT NO. 2


         Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27842 of 2010


Ahkam                                             ....................    Petitioner
                                      Versus
State of U.P. & others                           .................    Respondents
                                    With
         Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29760 of 2010


Ibrahim & others                            ....................     Petitioners
                                      Versus
State of U.P. & others                           .................    Respondents


                         ....................................


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Hon'ble Virendra Singh, J.

Heard Sri V.B. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shiv Sagar Singh for the petitioner in writ petition No. 27842 of 2010, Sri P.C. Srivastava for respondents no. 4 and 5, Sri Nandlal Maurya for respondent no.6 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1,2 and 3. Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.M.G. Asghar has appeared for the petitioner in writ petition No. 29760 of 2010, Sri P.C. Srivastava appears for respondents no. 4 and 5, Sri Nand Lal Maurya, appears for the respondent no. 2 and learned Standing counsel for respondent no. 1. Both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

In writ petition No. 27842 of 2010, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering 2 in any manner in the working of slaughter house at Kamela Road, Saharanpur by the petitioner from a period of three months starting from 22.3.2010, the date on which the respondent no. 5 granted approval to run the slaughter house as well as directed to complete installation of water purifier device.

Brief facts necessary for deciding these writ petitions are that a slaughter house at Kamela Road, Saharanpur is being run for the last several years. Writ petition No. 62234 of 2009 was filed by Akham challenging the order dated 21.2.2005, passed by U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow directing the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Saharanpur to close down the slaughter house being run without installation of appropriate water purifying device. The said writ petition was disposed of on 26.11.2009, permitting the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation before the respondent no. 2. In pursuance of the order dated 26.11.2009, the U.P. Pollution Control Board passed an order dated 29.1.2010 addressed to the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Parishad, Saharanpur issuing various directions including the direction to the Nagar Palika Parishad, Saharanpur to select a suitable site for shifting of the existing slaughter house and after selecting the site obtain no objection certificate from the U.P. Pollution Control Board. Further directions were issued with regard to slaughter house in question pointing out various shortcomings and irregularities. In view of the order dated 29.1.2010 of the U.P. Pollution Control Board, the Nagar Nigam passed an order permitting the petitioner Ahkam to run the slaughter house subject to fulfilling the conditions and direction of the U.P. Pollution Control Board. It was further indicated in the order that in the event the directions of the U.P. Pollution Control Board are not followed, the slaughter house shall be closed down. The petitioner Ahkam had come up to this Court praying for a writ of mandamus that the 3 respondents may not interfere in the running of slaughter house for a period of three months from 22.3.2010. The aforesaid period of three months have already expired.

The Nagar Nigam has filed counter affidavit to the writ petition of Ahkam in which it has been stated that for choosing a new sites there are lot of objections by the local persons hence, a decision has been taken to modernise the existing slaughter house in an area of 4000 square meters at Kamela Road, Saharanpur. It is further stated that a tender notice has been issued on 3.7.2010 asking for detailed project report for construction of modern slaughter house. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam that process for constructing the modernised slaughter house has been initiated. Learned Counsel for the U.P. Pollution Control Board has submitted that for running the slaughter house, the Nagar Nigam requires a permission and no objection certificate from the U.P. Pollution Control Board as was indicated in the letter dated 29.1.2010. We have no doubt that in view of the directions issued by the U.P. Pollution Control Board dated 29.1.2010, the Nagar Nigam shall obtain necessary permission and no objection certificate.

In the second writ petition filed by Ibrahim and others, the order passed by the Nagar Ayukt dated 25.4.2010 has been challenged by which the earlier order dated 24.4.2010 granting permission to slaughter the animals has been recalled. It has been further stated in the order dated 25.4.2010 that till the water purifier device is not installed, no other person except Ahkam son of Rizvan to whom permission has already been granted on 22.3.2010 in compliance of the order of this Court passed in writ petition No. 62234 of 2009, be permitted to slaughter the animals in view of the public health.

Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner Ibrahim and others challenging the order dated 25.4.2010 contended that the petitioners have been slaughtering the animals and for that purpose they were granted licence by the Nagar Nigam. He submits that it is the duty of Nagar Nigam to install necessary water purifier device as U.P. Pollution Control Board has issued directions to the Nagar Nigam to take all steps to follow the directions issued by the U.P. Pollution Control Board. He submits that the petitioners have fundamental right to carry on their business of slaughtering the animals in the slaughter house and the order dated 25.4.2010 cannot be sustained.

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, the issue as to whether till the modernised slaughter house is established at the place of existing slaughter house with regard to which tender notice has already been issued on 3.7.2010, the petitioner Ahkam and other petitioners have right to carry on the business of slaughtering the animals at the existing slaughter house. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 gives ample power to U.P. Pollution Control Board to take necessary action with the object of checking water pollution and to take appropriate action in that regard. Sections 24 and 25 of the Act gives ample power to U.P. Pollution Control Board and according to section 25 no person is entitled to establish or take any steps to establish any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system without previous consent of the U.P. Pollution Control Board, which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land. From slaughtering of the animals in the slaughter house there is a discharge of sewage into sewer and on land hence, the process of slaughtering the animals in the slaughter house is clearly covered by section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 5 1974. With regard to existing place of slaughter house specific shortcomings have already been pointed out by the U.P. Pollution Control Board in the order dated 29.1.2010 and it has issued direction to the Nagar Nigam to shift the existing slaughter house within three months after selecting a suitable site. It has come on record that no other suitable site has been found out by the Nagar Nigam except the existing site in the same locality where construction of modernised slaughter house in an area of 4000 square meters has been undertaken. We express no opinion with regard to the modernised slaughter house, which is in process as stated by Nagar Nigam and it is for the U.P. Pollution Control Board to consider the request of the Nagar Nigam after proper inspection and permit running of the modernised slaughter house. Now we are reverting to the issue as to whether the petitioners have right to slaughter the animals at the existing slaughter house as noted above. The permission granted by the Nagar Nigam both to Ahkam and Ibrahim have come to an end. The prayer of the writ petitioner Ahkam was that a direction be issued to permit him for slaughtering the animals for a period of three months starting from 23.3.2010 that period has already come to an end and virtually the writ petition filed by Ahkam has become infructuous.

The question as to whether the petitioner Ahkam and other petitioners are entitled to carry on slaughtering the animals in the old slaughter house, is a question which has to be gone into by the Nagar Nigam after taking into consideration the directions and necessary instructions of the U.P. Pollution Control Board. No one including the Nagar Nigam has right to create pollution which may endanger the public health. Nagar Nigam is duty bound to follow all instructions of U.P. Pollution Control Board and take appropriate steps to ensure that no pollution is caused by running of slaughter house. Suffice it say that it will be open for the petitioners to 6 approach the Nagar Nigam by means of appropriate application seeking permission to carry on their business of slaughtering the animals and it is for the Nagar Nigam to ensure compliance of all the directions and instructions issued by the U.P. Pollution Control Board before granting any permission to run the slaughter house. It is provided that the Nagar Nigam shall consider and take appropriate decision on the applications of the petitioners within three weeks from the date of making the application alongwith a certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of.

Dated: 15.7.2010 L.A./-