Dismissed

Naresh Kadyan v. Central Pollution Control Board

NGT4 Jul 2024Original Application No. 667/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal dismissed an original application filed regarding animal cruelty in slaughterhouses and non-implementation of various enactments, holding that the petition failed to establish jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act as the specific statues were not schedule enactments and the prayer lacked specificity.

What did the court decide?

The Original Application was dismissed with liberty to approach the Tribunal again if any case falls within its jurisdiction.

Naresh Kadyan vs Central Pollution Control Board — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No. 01

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 667/2024

Naresh Kadyan

Applicant

Versus

Central Pollution Control Board & Anr. Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 04.07.2024

¶10

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

¶11

Applicant: Mr. Naresh Kadyan, Applicant in Person

¶12

ORDER

¶13

In this original application filed by a retired non-official Member, State Committee for Slaughter Houses, Department of Urban and Local Bodies, Government of Haryana, the issue relating to the cruelty to the animals in the slaughter houses has been raised and the grievance is as against non-implementation of various provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001, Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulation, 2011 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and specific issue raised by the Applicant is about stunning of animals before slaughter. The petitioner has prayed for strict compliance of as many as 18 enactments relating to prevention of cruelty to animals as enumerated after the relief clause. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is extended to ensure the compliance of the provisions of the enactment schedule in NGT Act, 2010. None of the 18 enactments, of which the strict compliance has been sought by the Applicant, is included as

¶14

¶15

schedule enactment in NGT Act. In the prayer clause, a vague prayer has been made to issue direction relating to Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 without specifically disclosing as to which provision of these two schedule enactments have not been enforced or violated or not implemented or in respect of which provision of these two schedule enactments the Applicant is seeking the relief.

¶16

In the body of the OA also we do not find any specific averment making out a case for issuing any direction under these two schedule enactments.

¶17

The OA does not raise any substantial question relating to compliance of the provisions of the schedule enactment. Jurisdictional requirement as contained in sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act, 2010 are not present in the OA.

¶18

Hence, no case is made out to entertain the present OA which is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to the Applicant to approach the Tribunal again, if he finds any case falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal requiring examination in terms of the provisions of the NGT Act or enactments scheduled therein.

¶19

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶20

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶21

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶22

July 04, 2024 Original Application No. 667/2024 DV

¶23

Naresh Kadyan v. Central Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Kadyan v. Central Pollution Control Board

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

Similar cases

Yogesh Yadav vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee

Ratneshwar Jan Kalyan Samiti vs State of Uttrakhand

Bolisetty Satyanarayana vs State of Andhra Pradesh

R.Kanappan S/O Rangaiya Gowder vs 1. the Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

C Subramniyam vs the State of Tamilnadu through the Department of Geology and Mining

Jai Ram Dass Chawla vs Jai Ram Dass Chawla

Jairam Das Chawla vs

Rajaram vs State of Haryana

Shri Om Prakash vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Bharatiya Kisan Union Purwa through Its Sceretary vs Union of India Ministry of Jal Shakti (Government of Inida

News Item Titled "Ganga-Yamuna Par Bhari Pad Rahe Aastha Ke Phool Polythene Mei Bharkar Poolo Se Daal Rahe 25 Kg Polythene Roj" Appearing in Hindustan Dated 07.12.2023 vs

News Item Titled "Environment Activists Alarmed as Trees Chopped and Burnt Near Talacauvery Wildlife Sanctuary in Kodagu" Appearing in Thehindu.Com Dated 14.05.2024 vs

News Item Titled "Gujarat GST Commissioner Grabs 620 Acres from Entire Village Near Maharashtra,S Mahabaleshwar" Appearing in the Free Press Journal Dated 18.05.2024 vs

News Item Titled "Protest Brews in Kerala Over Allowing Eucalyptus Plantations in Forest Areas of State" Appearing in the Deccan Herald Dated 20.05.2024 vs