Allahabad High Court
M/S Marya Frozen Agro Food Products Pvt ... vs Chairman, Uttar Pradesh State ... on 23 January, 2023
Bench: Rajesh Bindal, Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Chief Justice's Court Serial No.3021 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD *** WRIT - C No. - 39108 of 2022 M/s Marya Frozen Agro Food Products Private Limited and another .....Petitioners Through :- Mr. Girish Kumar Gupta,Ms. Neha Gupta and Mr. Asad Alvi, Advocates v/s Chairman, Uttar Pradesh State Pollution Control Board and others .....Respondents Through :- Mr. Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 Mr. Shyam Mani Shukla, Advocate for respondent No.4 CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, JUDGE ORDER 1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated November 30, 2022 passed by the State Pollution Control Board under Section 32(1)(c) of the Water (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short, 'the Act of 1974'). It is on the ground that the petitioner is using the slaughter house for slaughtering the animals more than the permission granted. He even has permission from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India for slaughtering 1350 animals (800 buffaloes and 550 sheep/goats) and from the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, 700 animals (600 buffaloes and 100 sheep) per day, whereas from the State Pollution Control Board, the permission is to slaughter only 300 animals per day. 2. In case in hand, the slaughter house has been set up by the petitioner in public private partnership mode along with the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that ever since the slaughter house has been set up, the slaughtering of animals had never increased the limit of permission granted by the State Pollution Control Board. It had always remained below 300 animals, and even now, till such time the permission for slaughtering of more animals is granted by the State Pollution Control Board, the petitioner will never increase the 300 limit, for which the permission has been granted. 4. Learned counsel for the State Pollution Control Board submitted that in view of the specific stand taken by the petitioner in paragraph No. 23 of the rejoinder affidavit filed, the State Pollution Control Board will reconsider the matter and then may revoke the order passed under Section 32(1)(c) of the Act of 1974. The needful shall be done within one week from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 6. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the learned counsel for the State Pollution Control Board, the writ petition is disposed of in terms thereof. (J.J. Munir) Judge (Rajesh Bindal) Chief Justice Allahabad 23.01.2023 Deepak/SP Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No