Umesh Chandra Lodhi v. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Environment Lko and Ors.

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2024WPIL/828/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public interest litigation concerning a poultry farm in Unnao. The Board stated its jurisdiction applies only above 25,000 birds per CPCB guidelines; inspection found about 20,000. Court directed Animal Husbandry Department inspection and report in sealed cover; impleader application ordered; objection on mandamus to private parties rejected citing power to mould relief under Article 226.

What the court decided

AI extract

Umesh Chandra Lodhi vs State of U.P. Thru Addl… — Environment and Pollution | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 828 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Umesh Chandra Lodhi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Environment Lko And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Harshit Singh,Kamal Kant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava,Asit Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶5

1. Heard.

¶6

Counsel for the U.P. Pollution Control Board, Mr. Akhilesh Srivastava says that while deciding earlier Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 499 of 2024 on 31.05.2024 the decision already taken by the Board authorities on 18.08.2023 could not be brought to the notice of the Court. The said decision covers the grievance of petitioner. He says that on inspection it was found that instead of more than one lac hens in the poultry farm only twenty thousand and odd hens were found which are below the limit of twenty five thousand, as such, the jurisdiction does not lie with the Board to interfere in the matter; rather it lies with the Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of U.P. and the District Authorities. The Board has the jurisdiction when the poultry farm has birds more than twenty five thousand. This is in view of the guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board in January, 2022.

¶7

Let the Officers of the Animal Husbandry Department get an inspection conducted of the poultry farm in question to ascertain the number of birds in the poultry farm.

¶8

Let the petitioner implead the Animal Husbandry Department through its Director and the Chief Veterinary Officer, Unnao as opposite parties by moving appropriate application, who will comply this order and submit the report in sealed cover by the next date.

¶9

List on 24.10.2024.

¶10

An Objection has been raised that no mandamus can be sought against private opposite parties i.e., opposite party no. 7, we are of the opinion that if the poultry farm is being run illegally or there are other good grounds for

¶11

shifting the birds, then, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue direction either to the Board or the Animal Husbandry Department, as the case may be, to pass necessary orders for shifting/closure of the farm, therefore, this relief prayed for shall be considered accordingly, as, this Court has powers to mould the relief as and when the ends of justice so required. The vehement objection of Mr. Srivastava in this regard is rejected in the aforesaid terms.

¶12

As regards the objection that this very prayer was made in the first Public Interest Litigation, Mr. Srivastava himself has informed that the decision dated 18.08.2023 was not placed before the Court at that time, therefore, this objection is also meaningless, as, this Court will certainly like to ascertain the correct facts.

¶13

[Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

¶14

Order Date :- 27.9.2024 Santosh/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Umesh Chandra Lodhi v. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Environment Lko and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Umesh Chandra Lodhi v. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Environment Lko and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush U.P. Lko. and 2 Others vs Surendra Prasad Upadhyay

State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag Lko. and 2 Others vs Dr. Devendra Nath Tripathi

U.P.Anusuchit Jati Prathmik Vidyalay Shikshak Asstt. Lko Thru.Gen.Secy.Ramanand Vishwakarma and Anr. vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Girish Chandra Verma vs State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko and Ors.

U.P. Co-Operative Federation Limited,Thru. Its Managing Director and Another vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others vs Committee of Management Malti Devi Girls Junior High School Thru. Manager Umesh Kumar and Another