Panchayat Qureshian And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors.

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal Nos 1538-1539 of 2008

Panchayat Qureshian and Another Appellants

Versus

State of Rajasthan and Others Respondents

WITH

Writ Petition (Civil) No 358 of 2011

JUDGMENT

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 petition 2 under Article 32 of the

Constitution which has been heard with the civil appeals.

1 Civil Appeal Nos 1538-1539 of 2008 2 Writ Petition (Civil) No 358 of 2011 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2023.09.21 14:47:34 IST Reason: Page 1 of 7 CA 1538-1539/2008

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 1974 4 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 petition 5 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

3 “SPCB” 4 “Act of 1974” 5 SB Civil Writ Petition No 2823 of 2003

Page 2 of 7 CA 1538-1539/2008

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 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

Page 3 of 7 CA 1538-1539/2008

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 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.

Page 4 of 7 CA 1538-1539/2008

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

Page 5 of 7 CA 1538-1539/2008

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 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

Page 6 of 7 CA 1538-1539/2008

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.

….....…...….......…………………..CJI.

[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

..…....…........……………….…........J. [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha]

..…....…........……………….…........J. [Manoj Misra] New Delhi;

September 13, 2023 CKB

Page 7 of 7