Full Judgment Text
CA 1538-1539/2008
2023INSC841
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
W I T H
Writ Petition (Civil) No 358 of 2011
J U D G M E N T
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
1
1 The appeals 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
2
Rajasthan. In addition, there is a writ petition 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
3 The State Pollution Control Board issued directions under Section 33A of the
4
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 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
5
Qureshian in a writ petition 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