Disposed

M/S Al-Haq Foods Pvt. Ltd. Thru Its Director Navin Kumar Bhambri v. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief/Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Environment Forests and Climate Change and Ors.

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2024WRIC/10671/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A slaughter-house operator's consolidated consent to operate was cancelled by the U.P. Pollution Control Board for want of a revalidated NOC from the District Level Committee. Holding that the 2017 Government Order applies prospectively and no violation was alleged, the court kept the cancellation order in abeyance as an interim measure pending counter affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Operation and implementation of the impugned cancellation order dated 14.11.2024 kept in abeyance till next date of listing; three days' time granted for filing counter affidavit.

M/S Al-Haq Foods Pvt. Ltd. Thru Its Director… — Environment and Pollution | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10671 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Al-Haq Foods Pvt. Ltd. Thru Its DireCCAr Navin Kumar Bhambri

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief/Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Environment Forests And Climate Change And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhinav Singh,Lalta Prasad Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Verma

¶5

Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Dr. L. P. Mishra and Sri Abhinav Singh Advocates - the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Akash Sinha – the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri A. K. Verma - the learned counsel for the U.P. Pollution Control Board.

¶7

By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Chief Environment Officer, U. P. Pollution Control Board (which shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Board’), canceling the ‘Consolidated Consent to Operate and Authorisation’ (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘CCA’) issued to the petitioner on 23.08.2024 for running an animal slaughter house.

¶8

The aforesaid order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 25.10.2024 stating that the Board had issued the CCA dated 23.08.2024 but the petitioner had not submitted revalidated NOC issued by the District Level Committee and State Level Committee alongwith his online CCA Application. The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the CCA be not cancelled for the aforesaid reason.

¶9

The petitioner submitted a reply dated 28.08.2024 stating that in furtherance of an order dated 31.05.2023 passed by this Court in Writ C No. 4368 of 2022, NOC dated 21.05.2015 issued to the petitioner had been revalidated by the concerned authorities. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air Act

¶10

Page 1 of 8

¶11

(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 do not mandate obtaining recommendation from the District Level Committee as a precondition for issuance of CTE (Consent to Establish) and CCA. The petitioner had submitted an application for issuance of CCA on 18.04.2024. Consent for operation of the industry on trial basis was issued on 05.08.2024 and after due verification, a CCA dated 23.08.2024 was issued to the petitioner, which is valid till 31.03.2028. The petitioner has made an investment of Rs.100 Crores in establishing the industry and it invested a further sum of Rs. 50 Crores towards working capital after issuance of CCA. The petitioner has provided direct employment to about 1,000 workmen. The commercial export orders worth about Rs. 350 crores have been obtained by the petitioner.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner requested for withdrawal of the show cause notice and for co-operation in running the industry so as to encourage employment generation by the industry, export promotion and investment in the industries so as to keep up enthusiasm of the investors and the workmen.

¶13

Although the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 makes a mention that the petitioner’s reply was taken into consideration, it does not refer to any of the points submitted by the petitioner in its reply dated 28.10.2024. The CCA has been withdrawn for the reason that the petitioner has not submitted a revalidated NOC from the District Level Committee.

¶14

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the District Magistrate, Unnao had issued an administrative/local No Objection Certificate on 21.05.2015 for a modern export oriented animal slaughter house. This NOC records a hope that the slaughter house will earn foreign exchange worth approximately Rs. 1200 Crores as per the industrial policy of the Central government and the State government. The NOC was issued subject to as many as 69 conditions. Some of the conditions provide that the cattle from within the periphery of district Unnao will not be slaughtered. The petitioner

¶15

Page 2 of 8

¶16

should establish a rearing centre of cattle keeping in view the number of animals in the State. The petitioner will have to construct the slaughter house in accordance with the provisions contained in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001. The petitioner should install appropriate mechanical plant to prevent effluence of solid waste. The petitioner will have to comply with the provisions of the Prevention of against Cruelty to Animal Act, 1980 and the Animal Transportation Rules 2000 framed under the aforesaid Act. It will have to obtain No Objection certificate from the Animal Husbandry Department and from the Fire Fighting Department. It will have to abide by the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act. The petitioner’s unit can be inspected at any time by the District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate or any Administrative/Police Officer authorized by them, and by the authorized officers of Food and Drugs Administration, Fire Fighting Officer, Regional Officer, U. P. Pollution Control Board and the officers of the Electricity Department..

¶17

Condition No. 68 mentioned in the NOC provides that all directions to be issued in future will have to be complied with. Condition No. 69 provides that in case of commission of any irregularity or violation of any condition, the NOC will be deemed to have been cancelled automatically.

¶18

On 21.10.2016, the State Level Committee issued a No Objection certificate to the petitioner for establishing the animal slaughter house in district Unnao subject to 12 conditions mentioned therein.

¶19

On 04.01.2017, the U.P. Pollution Control Board issued a No Objection certificate to the petitioner for establishing a new animal slaughter house subject to 17 conditions mentioned therein. It was mentioned in this NOC that in case of breach of any of the conditions, the NOC may be cancelled. The Board had reserved the right to modify or cancel the conditions mentioned in the NOC.

¶20

On 22.02.2018, a memorandum of understanding was entered into between the petitioner and the Governor of the U.P. for establishing a

¶21

Page 3 of 8

¶22

Food Processing Unit at Unnao under which the Governor of U.P. agreed to facilitate the petitioner to obtain necessary permissions/ registrations/approvals/clearances etc. as per the existing facilities and Regulations of the State Government and to facilitate the petitioner to establish the project in a time bound manner. Thereafter, the petitioner established a fully integrated buffalo meat processing unit at Unnao after taking all the requisite permits/approvals/No Objection certificate from the authorized departments, including Consent to establish from U.P. Pollution Control Board under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Sections 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

¶23

On 03.01.2019, the petitioner submitted an application to U.P. Pollution Control Board for issuance of CCA, which was rejected by means of an order dated 03.06.2019. The petitioner removed the defect pointed out in the order dated 03.06.2019 and submitted a second application dated 17.12.2019 for issuance of CCA, which too was rejected by means of an order dated 09.03.2020 without assigning any reason. The petitioner submitted a third application dated 07.12.2019 for issuance of CCA, which too was rejected by means of an order dated 11.07.2020 for the reason that the petitioner has not submitted a re-validated NOC from different departments as well as from the State Level Committee as per the provisions contained in a Government Order dated 07.07.2017 and that it had not submitted compliance of different points raised in the previous rejection order dated 06.11.2019.

¶24

The petitioner filed Writ C No. 4368 of 2022 challenging the rejection order dated 11.07.2020 which was dismissed by means of the judgment and order dated 31.05.2023. However this Court directed that in case the petitioner complies with the mandatory provisions of law and applies afresh for issuance of CCA, complying with the provisions of the government order dated 07.07.2017, the authority shall expeditiously consider its claim in according with the law.

¶25

Page 4 of 8

¶26

Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application dated 02.06.2023 for issuance of a CCA. The State government directed the District Magistrate Unnao to examine the petitioner’s application in light of the Government Order dated 07.07.2017 and the terms and conditions mentioned in the compendium of 2024 laws/rules mentioned therein and to submit a report to the government after re-validating the earlier NOC dated 21.05.2015.

¶27

A four member committee consisting of Chief Veterinary Officer, Unnao, Regional Officer, U.P. Pollution Control Board, Unnao, Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Unnao and Assistant Commissioner (Food) II, Food Safety and Drug Administration, Unnao submitted a report in furtherance of the letter issued by the District Magistrate, recording point-wise findings on 24 Laws/Rules / Standards mentioned in the compendium referred to in the Government Order dated 07.07.2017 and the committee categorically stated that the petitioner has completed the basic establishment for operating the unit as per the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 07.07.2017 and the compendium mentioned therein.

¶28

On 05.05.2024, the U.P. Pollution Control Board issued a CCA to the petitioner for operating the industry on trial basis for the period from 05.08.2024 to 19.08.2024. After successful trial of the unit run by the petitioner, the Board issued a CCA for the period 23.08.2024 to 31.03.2028 which has been cancelled by the impugned order.

¶29

The learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties have raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had filed Writ C No. 4368 of 2022 challenging rejection of its request for issuance of CCA, which was rejected by means of the judgment and order dated 31.05.2023 and the aforesaid judgment would operate as Res Judicata against the claims raised in this writ petition.

¶30

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the cancellation of CCA after its issuance whereas the earlier writ petition had been filed challenging rejection of the application for issuance of CCA. The question of prospective operation of the government order dated

¶31

Page 5 of 8

¶32

07.07.2017 was neither raised nor decided in the aforesaid writ petition. The claim of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is also based on the four member committee report in furtherance of a direction issued by the State government to the District Magistrate Unnao to examine the petitioner’s application in light of the Government Order dated 07.07.2017 and the terms and conditions mentioned in the compendium of 2024 laws/rules mentioned therein and to submit a report to the government after re-validating the earlier NOC dated 21.05.2015. The four member committee report amounts to revalidation of the NOC, which facts and grounds were not there in the previous Writ Petition. Therefore, we are of the view that the aforesaid judgment would not create a bar of res judicata.

¶33

The second preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties is that the District Magistrate, Unnao has not been arrayed as an opposite party and the Writ Petition suffers from the defect of non-joinder of a necessary party. In this regard we are of the view that the petitioner has not challenged any order passed by the District Magistrate and the Writ Petition does not seek issuance of any direction to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate would not at all be adversely affected by any order to be passed in the Writ Petition. Therefore, the District Magistrate is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the Writ Petition and non-impleadment of the District Magistrate does not render the Writ Petition defective. Accordingly, this preliminary objection is also rejected.

¶34

The learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that after the Government Order dated 07.07.2017 was issued in furtherance of orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and any CCA granted without following the provision of the Government Order cannot be sustained and it has rightly been cancelled.

¶35

What is apparent from the material available on record before this Court at this stage is that the District Magistrate had granted an administrative/local No Objection certificate to the petitioner on 21.05.2015 subject to as many as 69 conditions. There is no allegation

¶36

Page 6 of 8

¶37

of violation of any condition by the petitioner. The State level committed had also granted a conditional No Objection certificate to the petitioner by means of an office memorandum dated 21.10.2016 and the conditions thereof are also not alleged to have been violated. The U.P. Pollution Control Board had issued Consent to establish the industry on 04.01.2017. It is only thereafter the that the petitioner has set up the unit and applied for issuance of CCA which was ultimately granted to it on 23.08.2024, after the said request had earlier been rejected three times and after operation of the unit was found to be successful when it was allowed to run on the trial basis in furtherance of the temporary CCA issued on 05.08.2024. There is no mention of violation of any of the provisions of Law/Rules/Regulations/Standards by the petitioner in operation of the industry.

¶38

So far as the allegation of non-issuance of revalidated NOC after issuance of the Government Order dated 07.07.2017 is concerned, the learned counsel for the opposite parties could not give any reply to unsettle the prima facie view expressed by the Court that the aforesaid Government Order would operate prospectively and it will not invalidate the NOC or the consent to establish issued prior to issuance of the aforesaid Government Order.

¶39

The petitioner submitted an application dated 02.06.2023 for issuance of a CCA in furtherance of the order dated 31.05.2023 passed in Writ C No. 4368 of 2022. The State government directed the District Magistrate Unnao to examine the petitioner’s application in light of the Government Order dated 07.07.2017 and the terms and conditions mentioned in the compendium of 2024 Laws/Rules mentioned therein and to submit a report to the government after re-validating the earlier NOC dated 21.05.2015. The report submitted by a four member committee consisting of Chief Veterinary Officer, Unnao, Regional Officer, U.P. Pollution Control Board, Unnao, Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Unnao and Assistant Commissioner (Food) II, Food Safety and Drug Administration, Unnao submitted a report in furtherance of the letter issued by the District Magistrate, recording point-wise findings on 24 Laws/Rules /Standards mentioned in the

¶40

Page 7 of 8

¶41

compendium referred to in the Government Order dated 07.07.2017 that the petitioner has completed the basic establishment for operating the unit as per the provisions contained in the aforesaid Government Order and the compendium mentioned therein, appears to be a revalidated NOC.

¶42

In view of the aforesaid discussion, prima facie it appears that cancellation of CCA on the ground of non-issuance of a revalidated NOC is not sustainable in law.

¶43

The impugned action appears to be taken in contravention of the spirit of the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the petitioner and the Governor of the State under which the Governor has agreed to facilitate the petitioner to obtain necessary permissions/registrations/approvals/clearances etc. as per the existing facilities and Regulations of the State Government and to facilitate the petitioner to establish the project in a time bound manner. Moreover, cancellation of the CCA would result in closure of an export based industry which would fetch considerable amount of foreign currency and in which about 1000 persons are employed, appears to be an action which would be detrimental to the interests of the State and it would not serve the interest of the public at large.

¶44

Therefore, as an interim measure, it is provided that till the next date of listing, the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 canceling the CCA issued to the petitioner, shall remain in abeyance.

¶45

The learned Counsel for the opposite parties have prayed for and are granted three days’ time for filing counter affidavit.

¶46

List/put up this case on 17.12.2024.

¶47

(Subhash Vidyarthi J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi J.) Order Date: 12.12.2024 kanhaiya

¶48

Page 8 of 8

¶49

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

M/S Al-Haq Foods Pvt. Ltd. Thru Its Director Navin Kumar Bhambri v. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief/Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Environment Forests and Climate Change and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Al-Haq Foods Pvt. Ltd. Thru Its Director Navin Kumar Bhambri v. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief/Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Environment Forests and Climate Change and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Rahul Kaushik Vs U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lko. and Others

Union of India Thru.Secy.Ministry of Post Telecommunication and It Deptt.Post, New Delhi and Others Vs Mitthu Lal

Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication and It , Deptt. of Posts, New Delhi and Others Vs Om Prakash Shukla

Badri Vishal vs Sri Manvendra Singh

Ajay Singh Rana vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 5 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irigation Deptt.Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others Vs Jagdamba Prasad Yadav and Another