Disposed

Farman Qurashi v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT7 Apr 2026IA No. 838/2023 in Original Application No. 712/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal addressed an application alleging environmental violations by a slaughterhouse in Uttar Pradesh. The Tribunal observed that a report by the Commissioner, Saharanpur's committee was not legally binding compared to its own appointed joint committee report. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the UPPCB to conduct a fresh inspection to verify compliance with the Tribunal-ap

What did the court decide?

Directed the UPPCB to carry out a fresh inspection of the Respondent unit to ascertain compliance with the Tribunal-appointed joint committee's recommendations and CTO conditions within eight weeks an

Farman Qurashi vs Ministry of Environment Forest and… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.13

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 712/2023 (IA Nos. 202/2024, 838/2023, 839/2023)

¶5

Farman Qurashi Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 07.04.2026

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶10

Applicant: Mr. Tanay Tewari, Advocate for the Applicant (Through VC) Respondents: Mr. Bhanwar Pal Singh Jadon, Mr. Shivansh Sharma, Ms. Anjali Sharma & Ms. Disha Tiwari, Advocates for respondents no.2 and 6 to 9 Mr. Pradeep Misra & Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advs. for UPPCB Mr. Saurabh Balwani & Mr. Chirag, Advs. for CPCB Mr. Ibad Mushtaq & Mr. F.A. Ayyubi, Advs. for respondent no. 10

¶11

ORDER

¶12

In this Original Application (OA), applicant had raised the grievance that respondent no.10-M/s. Meem Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. located at 993 to 1005, Kandhla Road, Kairana, Shamli District, Uttar Pradesh (UP) was operating the slaughter house in violation of the environmental norms.

¶13

The applicant had also alleged that CAQM by order dated 11.10.2023 had observed about closure of the unit but Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) instead of closing the respondent no.10’s unit had imposed meagre Environmental Compensation (EC) of Rs. 3,30,000/- and had regularized the non-compliance.

¶14

Considering the allegation made in the OA, Tribunal by order dated 05.12.2023 had constituted a joint committee by directing the joint

¶15

committee as under:-

¶16

¶17

“5. We also deem it proper to constitute a joint Committee comprising of the representatives of Member Secretary, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Member Secretary, UPPCB and District Magistrate, Shamli. The District Magistrate, Shamli will act as nodal agency. The joint Committee will carryout the spot inspection, ascertain the correct position on the spot and truthfulness of the allegations and file an action taken report before the Tribunal within two months by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.”

¶18

The joint committee had visited the respondent no.10 unit on 27.01.2024 and had found the following non-compliances:

¶19

“xxx…………………………………….xxx…………………………………….xxx Part B: Water Pollution

¶20

[18] The industry has not provided separate energy meter for ETP. [19] The industry has not provided digital flow meter at ETP inlet.

¶21

Part C: Air Pollution

¶22

[26] The industry has not provided separate energy meter for APCDS. [27] No log book for fuel consumption is maintained.”

¶23

The joint committee had made the following recommendations:

¶24

4. Recommendations

¶25

i. The industry shall follow the various provisions of the "Revised Comprehensive Industry Document on Slaughter Houses" issued by the Central Pollution Control Board in October 2017 (https://cpcb.nic.in/openpdffile.php?id=TGF0ZXN0RmlsZS8xNz VfMTUxMTI2ND E0MV9tZWRpYXBob3RvODkzOS5wZGY=)

¶26

ii. The industry shall ensure the compliance of conditions given in the "Compendium of Indian Standards on Slaughter House" compiled by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in compliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. (Civil) No(s). 309/2003: Laxmi Narayan Modi Govt. of India and Ors. (https://cpcb.nic.in/NGT/slaughter house compandium.pdf) V/s

¶27

iii. The industry shall install digital flow meter at ETP inlet and maintain the daily logbook for the same.

¶28

¶29

iv. The industry shall install separate energy meter at ETP and Air Pollution Control Devices.

¶30

V. The industry shall install sealed and calibrated flow meters at fresh water and ground water abstraction and consumption points (process & domestic) and maintain the logbooks for same.

¶31

vi. Proper colour coding of pipe lines and water channels to be implemented for the freshwater and recycled process water. In addition, marking with paint shall be done on the network of pipelines of ETP in order to display its routing.

¶32

vii. As per the "Guidelines of Online Continuous Effluent Monitoring System (OCEMS)", the industry shall calibrate OCEMS equipment at once in three months.

¶33

viii. The industry shall provide the linkage of the CCTVs/Pan, Tilt and Zoom (PTZ) cameras installed at both the Entry points of units, Lairage, slaughtering unit, meat processing unit, rendering plant unit, ETP discharge points, near the boiler and DG set to the District Magistrate office, State Level Monitoring Committee (SLMC), CPCB and UPPCB with the recording storage of minimum three months.

¶34

ix. The industry shall develop more green belt in the premises of the unit.

¶35

Χ. The industry shall maintain the daily log book for fuel consumption in the entire premises with challans. In addition, the Unit shall remove the dismantled DG set from the premises.

¶36

xi. Strict and constant night vigil through regular inspections by local administration and UPPCB is highly recommended in the alleged premises to prevent any illegal activity, specifically, direct discharge of influent in the nearby drain.

¶37

xii. The industry shall get the soil samples of the irrigation area analyzed from NABL approved laboratory at least once in a year to check the effect on the quality of soil due to repeated application of treated wastewater.”

¶38

All the concerned parties were given an opportunity to file objection to the report of the joint committee.

¶39

The applicant, while advancing arguments in this OA, has relied upon the report of the joint committee which was constituted by

¶40

¶41

Commissioner, Saharanpur. The said report is annexed as annexure A-2 (page 1312). In this report, certain violations were found by respondent no.10 and internal joint committee had made the recommendations for passing the closure order under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Water Act, 1974). It has been pointed out by Counsel for the applicant that subsequently, on 28.12.2024, again the joint committee had submitted a short report annexure 3 (page 1386) finding no violation. He has placed reliance upon the earlier report of the joint committee.

¶42

The report on which the applicant is placing reliance upon was a report by a committee constituted by the Commissioner, Saharanpur which is not one of the regulatory agency under the Water Act, 1974.

¶43

That apart, Tribunal had constituted the joint committee which has submitted the report quoted above. Hence, requisite action in respect of violation found by the joint committee appointed by the Tribunal and recommendations made by the said joint committee is required to be taken.

¶44

Learned Counsel appearing for UPPCB has pointed out that for the violation period from18.05.2024 to 27.06.2024 and another 40 days from 18.11.2024 to 27.12.2024 excluding 15 days non-operational period, environmental compensation of Rs. 19, 50,000/- for the violation period of 65 days has been imposed. The details in this regard are disclosed in the response affidavit of UPPCB dated 12.03.2025 as under:

¶45

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

¶46

D) The industry has been in the violative category for a total of 40 days between 18.05.2024 to 27.06.2024 and a total of 40 days from 18.11.2024 to 27.12.2024. Hence, the total violative days are calculated as 80 days. The industry informed in its reply dated

¶47

¶48

28.09.2024 that the industry was not operated for a total of 15 days from 10.06.2024 to 24.06.2024 due to Eid festival, non-availability of raw material and labour going on leave, in respect of which the details of antemortem and postmortem have been provided by the industry. It is not appropriate to include these 15 days. Hence the total number of violating days is calculated as 65 days. The details of antemortem and postmortem in respect of total 15 days (from 10.06.2024 to 24.06.2024) provided by the industry is annexed herewith as Annexure R4/4.

¶49

E) In reference to the violations abovementioned, Regional Office, UPPCB, Muzaffarnagar has recommended for imposition of environmental compensation of Rs. 19,50,000/- and has been sent to H.O., UPPCB, Lucknow. Further, UPPCB, H.O. Lucknow had imposed Environmental Compensation along with revocation of show cause notice, which is annexed as Annexure R4/5.”

¶50

Learned Counsel for UPPCB has pointed out the order dated 12.03.2025 whereby environmental compensation of Rs. 19, 50,000/- was imposed. It is stated by Learned Counsel for respondent no.10/project proponent that in compliance of the above order of the UPPCB, project proponent has deposited a sum of Rs. 11 lakhs as environmental compensation. He has further submitted that remaining amount of Rs. 8, 50,000/- will be deposited by respondent no.10 within three months.

¶51

The violations which have been found in the report of the joint committee appointed by the Tribunal are also required to be cured/remediated.

¶52

Recommendations made by the joint committee have not been disputed by the project proponent. A submission has been made by Counsel for respondent no.10 that those recommendations have been complied with.

¶53

¶54

Learned Counsel for respondent no. 10/project proponent has submitted that in subsequent inspections, respondent no.10 has been found to be complaint. This needs to be verified by the UPPCB.

¶55

In such circumstances, we dispose of the OA, directing the UPPCB to carry out the fresh inspection of respondent no.10 unit ascertain the compliance of the recommendations made by the joint committee and also ascertain the compliance of the CTO conditions by respondent no.10 within eight weeks and submit the report before the Registrar General of the Tribunal through email at [email protected], preferably in the form of a searchable PDF/OCR-supported PDF and not in the form of an Image PDF. If deemed necessary, the matter will be listed for consideration before the bench again.

¶56

All pending IAs are also disposed of.

¶57

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶58

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶59

April 07, 2026 Original Application No. 712/2023 (IA Nos. 202/2024, 838/2023, 839/2023) JG.

¶60

Farman Qurashi v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farman Qurashi v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

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

Deepank Kumar Sharma vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Manav Uthaan Manch through Its Authorised Signatory Hemant Kumar Madhavdas Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra

Mukesh Gaikwad S/O Shri Shivaji Gaikwad vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through Deputy Director General of Forests

Society Fdevelopment of Human Resource vs State of Haryana

Joe Fernandez vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

News Item Titled Bhojpur Bangrasia Fourlane Sadak Nirmaan Shuru Pedo Ki Shifting Ke Naam Par Ho Rahi Katai Appearing in Nav Duniya News Paper Dated 31ST October 2025 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Sri Aurobindo Integral Education and Research Centre Sundargarh through Its Secretary Sh Niranjan Mohanty vs Union of India

Jaishree Bansal vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Society Fdevelopment of Human Resource vs State of Haryana

Society Fdevelopment of Human Resource vs State of Haryana

Parmjeet Singh vs 1. Union of India

Harsh Chugh vs State of Haryana

News Item Titled "Increasing Pollution Badly Affecting Water Bodies in Bhadarwah" Appearing in Greater Kashmir Dated 15.01.2024 vs

Farman Qurashi vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change