Disposed

Salim v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through the Secretary

NGT2 Sept 2024IA No. 242/2024 in Original Application No. 621/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal examined an appeal and original application regarding a slaughter house in Saharanpur violating environmental norms. The Tribunal upheld and permitted the operation of the unit only upon an undertaking to shift the facility outside the residential area by February 1, 2025, subject to monthly compliance inspections.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the slaughter house to run on an undertaking to shift outside the residential area by 01.02.2025; ordered monthly inspections by UPPCB; extended UPPCB timeline to determine Environmental Com

Salim vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item Nos. 02 & 03

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Appeal No. 16/2024 (IA No. 282/2024, IA No. 172/2024, IA No. 169/2024, IA No. 117/2024, IA No. 116/2024)

¶5

M/s Slaughter House Nagar Nigam Saharanpur

¶6

Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Anr. Respondent(s)

¶9

WITH

¶10

Original Application No. 621/2024 (IA No. 242/2024, IA No. 241/2024)

Salim

Applicant

Versus

Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change & Ors.

¶15

Respondent(s)

¶16

Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order: 06.08.2024

¶17

Date of Pronouncement of order: 02.09.2024

¶18

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶19

Appellant: Ms. Mansi Chahal, Mr. S.A. Zaidi & Mr. Kapil Sagar, Advs. for Appellant in Appeal No. 16/2024 Mr. Aruj Kant, Adv. for Applicant in OA No. 621/2024

¶20

Respondent: Mr. Pradeep Misra & Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advs. for UPPCB (Through VC)

¶21

Mr. Amit Shukla, Adv. for UPPCB

¶22

Mr. Vikrant Pachnanda, Adv. for R - 1 & 3 in OA 621/2024

¶23

Mr. Raunak Parekh, Adv. for R - 6 in OA 621/2024

¶24

Ms. Mansi Chahal, Mr. S.A. Zaidi & Mr. Kapil Sagar, Advs. for R - 10 in OA 621/2024

¶25

ORDER

¶26

In this appeal and OA, the issue of violation of environmental norms and requisite guidelines by M/s. Slaughter House Nagar Nigam,

¶27

Saharanpur is involved. So far as the norms relating to the slaughter houses are concerned, they are disclosed in the report dated 28.06.2024

¶28

¶29

filed by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in the OA disclosing that the slaughter house and meat processing industries are categorized under "red category" and they are required to obtain Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate by the concerned SPCBs and PCCs. The reply further revels that revised standards for discharge of effluent from slaughter house were notified by the MoEF&CC on 28.10.2016 under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and CPCB had published "Revised Comprehensive Industry Document on Slaughter House" in October, 2017, stipulating the best treatment technologies available for treatment of waste from slaughter house or Solid Waste Management and Oduor Management. The CPCB has circulated the compilation and guidelines applicable to slaughter houses prepared by the MoEF&CC vide letter dated 01.01.2018 for implementation. The red category industries in terms of the direction of the CPCB dated 12.12.2019 is required to be inspected every six months by the concerned State PCBs and PCCs. The CPCB has also issued directions dated 14.01.2022 under section 18(1)(b) of the Water Act and 18(1)(b) of the Air Act to all State PCBs and PCCs regarding installation of rendering plant (dry) along with blood coagulator for processing animal waste and to install well designed effluent treatment plant for treatment of waste water. The CPCB has also enclosed a copy of the order dated 23.08.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in WP(C) No. 309/2003 in the matter of Laxmi Narain Modi v. Union of India and Ors., wherein the stand of the CPCB in respect of the pollution being caused by the slaughterhouses is recorded as under:-

¶30

“The CPCB is of the view that the slaughter houses generate substantial quantities of effluents and solid wastes. These slaughter houses causes nuisance by way of foul smell due to improper handling. It is, therefore, necessary that these units should install pollution control devices so that they can comply with the prescribed standards. Further, it was stated that the existing slaughter houses

¶31

¶32

need to modernize their operations with greater emphasis of utilization of waste to reduce environmental problems and to maintain hygienic conditions. It is also pointed out that most of the slaughter houses in the country are very old and operate without basic amenities such as proper flooring, water supply, ventilation etc., and there is no need to upgrade old slaughter houses on modern lines.

¶33

Therefore, the CPBC submitted that all the slaughter houses in the country should comply with the prescribed standards. The local municipal agencies and concerned police should ensure that no illegal slaughtering takes place and also the units conform to the standards set by the State Pollution Control Boards and Pollution Control Committees.”

¶34

Hon'ble Supreme Court in that order had directed all the State Governments and Union Territories to constitute the State Committee for slaughter houses and further directed the CPCB to write all the State Governments informing about the guidelines for slaughter houses and to initiate action against all the slaughter houses which are not meeting with the norms and implement the abattoir rules through the State Pollution Control Boards. The said order of the Supreme Court is required to be fully complied with.

¶35

Appeal No. 16/2024

¶36

The appellant slaughter house is established and operated at Kamla Colony, Saharanpur. It produces meat for supply.

¶37

This appeal has been filed under section 16 and 18 of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010 challenging the order dated 10.02.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 1, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) directing closure of the appellant, suspending the consent issued on 27.12.2019 and directing disconnection of electricity, water and other facilities and further levying Environmental Compensation (EC) of ₹6,30,000/- for 63 days, i.e., from the date of inspection on 07.6.2023 till 08.08.2023.

¶38

¶39

The impugned order dated 10.02.2024 records followings violations which were found during the inspection:-

¶40

a) During inspection dated 06.01.2024, the ETP was not found to be properly maintained and operated;

¶41

b) The primary clarifier, secondary clarifier, tertiary clarifier and multi-grade filter of the ETP were found to be closed and it was found that no chemical dozing was being done in the additional flash mixing tank;

¶42

c) Samples from Aeration tank II were taken and physical verification was done in which it was found that MLSS was ‘0’ in Aeration tank II which made it clear that the biological treatment in ETP was not done as per the norms and by mixing the water dilution was being done in ETP;

¶43

d) DAF was not found to be installed in ETP;

¶44

e) Though modern equipments were found to be installed in the slaughter house but during the inspection it was found that the modern slaughtering room was not in use;

¶45

f) During inspection online effluent monitoring system and flow meter were not found to be working;

¶46

g) The condition no. 19 of the consent dated 02.01.2020 under the Water Act and condition no. 18 of consent dated 27.12.2019 under the Air Act requiring the unit to shift outside the populated area within three months was found to be violated;

¶47

h) It was also found that the effluent discharged by the unit was flowing through the municipal corporation drain and discharging in Dhamola which finally out falls in river Hindon;

¶48

¶49

During the course of argument, nothing has been pointed out to show that the violations found during the inspection were incorrect in any manner.

¶50

From the perusal of the impugned order dated 10.02.2024, we find that the UPPCB, on noticing the violations, had issued a show cause notice dated 21.07.2023 and thereafter, conducted fresh inspection on 09.08.2023 and 06.01.2024 and had given the show cause notices dated 30.09.2023 and 19.01.2024. Hence, the principles of natural justice were fully complied with.

¶51

The Tribunal on 11.03.2024 had considered the submission of counsel for the appellant that the unit will comply with all the requisite norms and EC amount will be deposited within one week and the closure for a longer duration will create inconvenience. Accordingly, the Tribunal on 11.03.2024 had directed as under:-

¶52

“xxx ……………………………….xxx……………………………………xxx 3. Having regard to the above submission and also considering the fact that the correctness of the order under challenged is to be examined in this appeal and also taking note of the circumstances of the case, we direct the respondent no. 1 to permit the trial run of the appellant unit for four weeks after deposit of EC amount and take the requisite samples on completion of four weeks and obtain the sample analysis report and submit the same before the Tribunal atleast one week before the next date of hearing by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.

¶53

4. The further operation of the unit in terms of the interim order will be subject to examination of the sample analysis report.”

¶54

Thereafter, IA 200/2024 was filed by the appellant stating that the appellant had deposited the EC of ₹6,30,000/- with the UPPCB on 15.03.2024 and the trial run of the unit was allowed by the UPPCB from 15.03.2024 and that till the date of filing of the application the inspection of the unit was not done, therefore, a prayer was made to permit the unit

¶55

¶56

to run for a further period four weeks till the inspection of the unit was conducted.

¶57

The Tribunal by order dated 30.04.2024 had accepted the prayer partially and had disposed of the IA No. 200/2024 by extending the time of trial run by a further period of two weeks. The inspection of the unit during the trial run period has been done. Thereafter, the UPPCB has filed the report which mentions that even during the trial run period following non-compliances were found by the UPPCB:-

¶58

“xxx ……………………………….xxx………………………………….xxx

¶59

5. Modern equipments were installed in the said slaughter house for slaughtering. But during inspection the modern slaughtering chamber was not found in use. Further, the representative informed that the work of slaughtering of buffaloes is being done manually in the slaughter house. The footage of CCTV cameras installed in the slaughter house was checked by the officials. The slaughtering work was found to be done manually in the footage of CCTV cameras. A copy of photos of CCTV footage is being attached herewith as Annexure-2 to this report.

¶60

xxx ……………………………….xxx………………………………….xxx

¶61

7. Blood meal plant was also found established in the premises of slaughter house near the Rendering plant for the disposal of blood generated from slaughtering of buffaloes. During inspection blood coagulator/blood meal were found completely closed and inactive. During the inspection, the representative did not gave any satisfactory reply regarding the disposal of blood nor produce any document regarding the disposal of blood. Hence, it is evident that the disposal of blood is not being done as per norms by the slaughter house.

¶62

8. Arrangement for disposal of Dung has not found established as per norms/conditions issued to the slaughter house by the State Board. Thus it is evident that the slaughter house is disposing dung at some other place and not using it as a fuel in the boiler installed in the premises of the slaughter house as per the norms. During the inspection, the representative did not gave any satisfactory answer regarding the disposal of dung nor produced any document regarding the disposal of dung.

¶63

xxx ……………………………….xxx………………………………….xxx

¶64

12. The treated effluent generated from the ETP is discharged through Nagar Nigam drain in the Dhamola River/drain, which ultimately meets the Hindon River.

¶65

¶66

Thus, we find that even during the trial run, the appellant was not complying with the requisite norms. That apart, we find that condition 19 of the consent order issued under the Water (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974 (Water Act) on 02.01.2020 and condition 18 of consent order under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Air Act) dated 27.12.2019 stipulate shifting of the slaughter house outside the populated area within three months by providing as under:-

¶67

"The unit will submit proposal for shifting outside the populated area in a time bound manner within 03 months."

¶68

The said condition has not been complied with though more than 4 years have passed.

¶69

The appellant has filed the response dated 30.07.2024 to the inspection report dated 19.06.2024 relating to the inspection during the trial run period. We have examined the said response, wherein the agreement dated 01.01.2024 with one Mohd. Gayyur for taking and scientifically disposing the cow/buffalo dung has been enclosed and log book of blood waste and blood meal generation of April, 2024 and May, 2024 have been enclosed but no particulars and other details thereof in respect of the disposal of the blood in scientific manner as per norms have been mentioned.

¶70

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that now the appellant will comply with all the norms and will also comply with the condition of shifting of the unit by 01.02.2025 or it will close down the unit.

¶71

Thus, we find that so far as the impugned closure order dated 10.02.2024, is concerned, it does not suffer from any error but if the appellant complies with all the norms and also comply with the condition

¶72

¶73

of shifting the unit outside the residential area then he can be permitted to operate by the concerned authorities.

¶74

OA 621/2024

¶75

The OA involves same issue which is involved in Appeal. This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking compliance of specific condition no. 19 of consent order dated 02.01.2020 and specific condition no. 18 of the consent order dated 27.12.2019 by the respondent no. 10, M/s. Slaughter House Nagar Nigam in respect of shifting of the slaughter house. The further prayer of the applicant is to direct the Competent Authority to initiate prosecution against the Respondent No. 10 under section 37 of the Air Act and 44 of the Water Act for continued violation of the consent orders dated 27.12.2019 and 02.01.2020 and also to cancel the consent. The allegation of the applicant in the OA is that not only the respondent slaughter house is violating the consent condition but it is undertaking slaughtering operations without complying with the norms of effluent disposal and proper Solid Waste Management and is operating in the residential area and is disposing of the effluents including both type I and type II waste which is causing enormous environmental degradation. The Tribunal on 28.05.2024 had issued notice to the respondents in the OA.

¶76

In the OA, a reply has been filed by the Respondent 10, PP, Slaughter House raising the objection that original applicant is misusing the process of PIL but we find that in the OA substantial issue relating to compliance of environmental norm has been raised and the OA is not misuse of process of law. A plea is sought to be raised that the local residents have made no complaint about the slaughter house. The Tribunal at this stage need not go into such factual issue, once the

¶77

¶78

violation of norms has come on record. That apart the PP is required to comply with the condition about shifting of slaughter house contained in the consent under the Air Act and Water act.

¶79

The detailed analysis of facts and reports has already been done in earlier parts of the order while considering the Appeal and nothing new has been filed in this OA.

¶80

Common Order in Appeal and OA

¶81

A statement has been made by the counsel for the PP that it will operate the slaughter house by complying with all the norms and will also comply with the condition of shifting of the plant outside the residential area by 01.02.2025.

¶82

Hence, we dispose of the OA permitting the PP to give an undertaking before the Member Secretary, UPPCB to the effect that by 01.02.2025, either he will comply with the specific condition no. 19 of consent order dated 02.01.2020 of Water Act and specific condition no. 18 of the consent order dated 27.12.2019 of the Air Act about submitting the proposal for shifting of the slaughter house from residential area and shift the slaughter house outside the residential area by 01.02.2025, failing which it will close down unit and till that time, it will run the unit by following the environmental norms. If such an undertaking is submitted, the UPPCB will permit the PP to run the plant subject to the compliance of the undertaking and environmental norms at the present location till 01.02.2025.

¶83

The UPPCB will carry out monthly inspection of the unit to ensure that the unit is complying with the environmental norms during this period and if any violation of the norm is found then the closure order

¶84

¶85

will come in operation. We make it clear that we have not interfere with the closure order but has permitted the PP to run the plant on undertaking of complying with the environmental norms. This will also not absolve the PP of its liability to pay the EC for the period of noncompliance till the passing of closure order which will be ascertained by the UPPCB by duly complying with the principles of natural justice and order in this regard will be passed by the UPPCB within two months from today.

¶86

The OA and Appeal are accordingly disposed of along with connected IAs.

¶87

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶88

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶89

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶90

September 02, 2024 Appeal No. 16/2024 (IA No. 282/2024, IA No. 172/2024, IA No. 169/2024, IA No. 117/2024, IA No. 116/2024) and connected matter avt

¶91

Salim v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravinsingh Arjun Shedgaonkar vs the Goa State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa)

Mr John Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Rajbir Malik vs State of Haryana

Sabra Leather Finishers vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Behru Lal Regar vs State of Rajasthan

Amit Upadhayay vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Uttar Pradesh

Prem Aggarwal vs

News Item Titled "Feeling Anxious? Toxic Air Could Be to Blame" Appearing in Times of India Dated 10.10.2023 vs

Kulwinder Singh vs State of Punjab

News Item Titled "Maharashtra: 22 Workers Injured in Boiler Explosion at Steel Factory in Jalna" Appearing in India Tv Dated 24.08.2024 vs

Sachin Madev Hegde and Anr. vs

Salim vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through the Secretary

Salim vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through the Secretary

Ankur Son of Rajpal vs