National Green Tribunal
Shailesh Singh vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board on 23 January, 2025
Item No. 5 Court No. 1
BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No.17/2025
Shailesh Singh Applicant
Versus
Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 23.01.2025
Date of uploading: 20.02.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Ms. Preeti Singh and Mr. Sunklan Porwal, Advocates
ORDER
1. Original Application (hereinafter referred to as 'OA') at the instance of Shailesh Singh-applicant has come up with the complaint that respondent 10 i.e., M/s. Marya Frozen Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd., having registered office at khasra no.87, 94-99, Village-Mohanpur Thiriya, District-Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as 'Project Proponent') is operating a slaughter house unit in violation of provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'Water Act, 1974') and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'Air Act, 1981') and other applicable environmental laws and regulations, causing environmental pollution and health hazards.
1
2. It has prayed that all operations of project proponent be stopped; authorities concerned be directed to take appropriate action against the responsible officers who have failed to take action against the violators; Central Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'CPCB') be directed to bring on record correct data and calculation of slaughtering activities carried out by respondents 2 i.e., Bareilly Nagar Nigam (hereinafter referred to as 'BNN') and Project Proponent from August 2021 to January 2025, highlighting the extent of violations; a Monitoring Committee be constituted to oversee operations of the slaughter house belong to BNN and ensure compliance of environmental laws; and environmental compensation be imposed upon the violators i.e., BNN (respondent 2) and project proponent (respondent 10) and other respondents for causing irreparable loss to environment due to unauthorized slaughtering.
3. The facts in brief stated by applicant in OA are that the applicant is a journalist dedicated to advocating for environmental justice by raising critical issues. Slaughter house in question is owned by BNN and is leased out in April 2016 to Project Proponent for slaughtering of buffaloes/animals. The prescribed and authorized limit for slaughtering was 300 buffaloes per day subject to strict compliance with environmental norms but these restrictions have been flagrantly disregarded by respondents 2 and 10 and despite repeated complaints, the agreement entered by respondent 2 with respondent 10 has not been terminated. Illegal action and alleged violations stated by applicant in the OA are excess slaughtering i.e., beyond the permissible slaughter limit; illegal expansion of lairage area and modification of slaughter house infrastructure to accommodate larger number of animals without obtaining necessary statutory approvals; slaughtering of underage sick animals and also of 2 stolen animals; non-functioning of Effluent Treatment Plant (hereinafter referred to as 'ETP'); emission of unbearable and persistent odor; non- functional camera surveillance systems; unrestricted discharge of untreated effluents into drainage channels leading to overflow of drains and severe contamination of the surrounding area including rivers and ground water.
4. Applicant claims that the complaint is based on substantiated documentary evidence which includes news articles affirming income tax raids on the project proponent unit; notice dated 03.01.2017 issued by Uttar Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'UPPCB') on 03.01.2017 under Section 5 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'EP Act, 1986') which directed project proponent to close all bypass drains, comply with CPCB guidelines for bio- composting of waste generated by the unit; implement proper sludge management systems; raise Diesel Generator set height to meet prescribed norms; install magnetic flow meters at tube wells; and maintain proper logbooks.
5. The application, however, further discloses that UPPCB granted Conditional Consent on 27.12.2019 under Section 25 and 26 of Water Act, 1974 permitting slaughtering of 300 buffaloes per day and discharge of 303 KLD water after due treatment from ETP. The consent was subsequently renewed for the period of 01.01.2022 to 31.12.2026 vide order dated 16.12.2021. UPPCB issued an order on 30.11.2022 revoking consent granted to proponent's unit and directing its immediate closure on the ground of violation of environmental norms. Respondent 10 i.e., project proponent challenged order dated 30.11.2022 passed by UPPCB in High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.39108 of 2022, M/s Marya Frozen Agro Food Products Private Limited and another vs. 3 Chairman, Uttar Pradesh State Pollution Control Board and others which was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.01.2023 by a Division Bench of High court recording the statement of Counsel of UPPCB that in view of specific stand taken by Project Proponent in para 23 of rejoinder affidavit, UPPCB will re-consider the matter and may revoke the order passed under Section 32(1)(c) of Water Act, 1974. High Court directed UPPCB to do needful within one week from the date of receipt of the order of Court. High Court's order for ready reference is reproduced as under:
"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."4
6. Applicant has further complained that Project Proponent misrepresented before High Court and misled UPPCB also pursuant whereto, High Court passed judgment dated 23.01.2023 in as much as it committed breach of its undertaking before High Court and this was noted by Income Tax Department when it conducted search and seizure operation on Project Proponent's unit on 21.12.2022 and on the basis of the information collected therein, Additional Director Income Tax (Investigation) Lucknow sent a letter dated 13.10.2023 to Chairman, UPPCB stating that the number of buffaloes slaughtered by Project Proponent were much more than the prescribed permitted limit ranging from 800 to 1000 buffaloes per day and, therefore matter may be registered by UPPCB for wrongful acts committed by Project Proponent and appropriate action be taken.
7. In para 9.8 of OA, applicant has stated that while UPPCB permitted slaughtering of only 300 buffaloes; Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority allowed 600 buffaloes slaughtering and this number was further increased by Food Safety and Standards Authority of India to 800 buffaloes. Applicant has stated that on certain dates in November 2021 and 2022, number of animals slaughtered by Project Proponent exceeded to prescribed limits and in para 9.9, it has said as under:
"On November 20, 2021: 1332 buffaloes On November 21, 2021: 1351 buffaloes On November 22, 2021: 1254 buffaloes On November 23, 2021: 1124 buffaloes.
On November 24, 2021: 893 buffaloes On November 30, 2021: 1082 buffaloes On November 4, 2022: 1158 buffaloes On November 28, 2022: 1314 buffaloes On November 30, 2022: 1341 buffaloes"5
8. Acting upon the aforesaid information received from Income Tax Department, UPPCB issued a letter dated 15.01.2024 to Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly requiring it to constitute a Committee and get the complaint of slaughtering beyond limit, investigated, and if any violation is found, appropriate First Information Report (FIR) under the relevant provisions be registered.
9. Joint Committee of Nagar Nigam and UPPCB made a joint inspection of the premises of slaughter house on 01.04.2024 and finding certain violations on the part of Project Proponent, recommended appropriate action under Section 33A of Water Act, 1974. The violations reported in the joint inspection Report, in brief, are stated, as under:
(a) Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) Failures,
(b) Absence of a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP),
(c) Unbearable Stench,
(d) Overcapacity in the Lairage Area,
(e) Illegal Use of Timber us Fuel,
(f) Underage Female Buffaloes Found, and
(g) Non-Functioning Cameras.
10. UPPCB thereafter issued a letter dated 22.05.2024 to slaughter house in question requiring it to show cause as to why following directions under Section 33A read with 27(2) of Water Act, 1974 be not issued:
"I. यह कि क्यों न उद्योग मै० नगर ननगम पशुवधशाला (संचाललत द्वारा मै माररया फ्रोजेन एग्रो फूडक्स प्रा०लल०), ग्राम-मोहनपुर ठिररया, एन०एच०-24, शाजहााँपुर रोड, तहसील-बरे ली, जजला-बरे ली िे पक्ष में बोडड िे पत्र संख्या 137014/UPPCB/Bareilly(UPPCBRO)/CTO/water/BAREILLY/2021 ठिनांि 16/12/2021 एवं पत्र संख्या 137010/UPPCB/Bareilly(UPPCBRO)/CTO/air/BAREILLY/2021 ठिनांि 16/12/2021 द्वारा 31.12.2026 ति ननगडत सशत्र सहमनत पत्र िो तत्िाल प्रभाव से खजडडत िर ठिया जाये।6
II. यह कि क्यों न उद्योग मै० नगर ननगम पशुवधशाला (संचाललत द्वारा मै० माररया फ्रोजन एग्रो फूड्स प्रा०लल०), ग्राम - मोहनपुर ठिररया, एन०एच०-24, शाहजहााँपुर रोड, तहसील-बरे ली, जजला-बरे ली िे संचालन िो रोिे जाने हेतु आिे श जारी िर ठिये जाये।
III. यह कि क्यो न सक्षम अधधिाररयों से यह अपेक्षा िी जाये कि उद्योग मै० नगर ननगम पशुवधशाला (संचाललत द्वारा मै० माररया फ्रोजन एग्रो फूड्स प्रा०लल०), ग्राम - मोहनपुर ठिररया, एन०एच०-24, शाहजहााँपुर रोड, तहसील-बरे ली, जजला-बरे ली िे संचालन से सम्बंधधत समस्त ववधुत िनेक्शनों एवं जल आपूनतड िनेक्शन िो तत्िाल प्रभाव से रोि ठिया जाये।
IV. यह कि क्यों न आपिे उद्योग मै० नगर ननगम पशुवधशाला (संचाललत द्वारा मै० माररया फ्रोजन एग्रो फूड्स प्रा०लल०), ग्राम - मोहनपुर ठिररया, एन०एच०-24, शाहजहााँपुर रोड, तहसील-बरे ली, जजला-बरे ली िे ववरुद्ध उल्लंघन अवधध हे तु िेन्द्रीय प्रिष ू ण ननयंत्रण बोडड द्वारा जारी मागडिलशडिा िे अनुसार धनरालश रूपये 30,000/- प्रनतठिन िी िर से पयाडवरणीय क्षनतपूनतड अधधरोवपत िर िी जाये."
"I. That why not the conditional consent letter issued in favour of the Industry Municipal Corporation Slaughterhouse (Operated by M/s Maria Frozen Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd.), village -Mohanpur Thiriya, NH-24, Shahjahanpur Road, Tehsil-Bareilly, District-Bareilly by the Board's letter No.137014/UPPCB/Bareilly (UPPCBRO)/CTO/water/BAREILLY/2021 dated 16/12/2021 and letter No. 137010/UPPCB/Bareilly (UPPCBRO)/CTO/air/BAREILLY/2021 dated 15/12/2021, till 31.12.2026 be cancelled with immediate effect.
II. That why not a ban order be issued to stop the operation of Industry Municipal Corporation Slaughterhouse (Operated by M/s Maria Frozen Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd.), Paan-Modanpur Siria, NH-24, Shahjahanpur Sheikh, Tehsil-Bareilly, District-Bareilly.
III. That why not this may be appealed to the competent authorities that all electricity connections and water supply connections related to the operation of Industry M/s Municipal Slaughterhouse (Operated by M/s Maria Fozen Agro Pvt. Ltd.), village -Mohanpur Thiriya, NH-24, Shahjahanpur Road, Tehsil- Bareilly, District-Bareilly should be stopped with immediate effect.
IV. Why should environmental compensation of Rs. 30,000/- per day not be imposed against your industry M/s Municipal Slaughterhouse (Operated by M/s Maria Fozen Agro Pvt. Ltd.), village -Mohanpur Thiriya, NH-24, Shahjahanpur Road, Tehsil- Bareilly, District-Bareilly as per the guidelines issued by Central Pollution Control Board for the violation period?"7
11. Applicant in respect of the alleged violation sought information from BNN by filing an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 but BNN declined to give any such information vide letter dated 13.06.2024. In the meantime, Regional Officer, UPPCB vide letter dated 22.06.2024 addressed a letter to Chief Environment Officer, (Circle 7), UPPCB, Lucknow recommending action of closure and imposition of environmental compensation against the slaughter house in question with reference to show cause notice dated 22.05.2024.
12. Record also discloses that pursuant to show cause notice dated 22.05.2024, a closure order was passed on 04.07.2024 under Section 33A read with Section 27(2) of Water Act, 1974 which was challenged by respondent 10 in the High Court of Allahabad (at Lucknow) in Writ Petition No. 5976/2024 (C). The proceedings before High Court shows that after inspection dated 04.04.2024, show cause notice dated 22.05.2024 was issued but then three more inspections were conducted on 13.05.2024, 11.06.2024 and 15.06.2024 and taking all these inspection reports into consideration, closure order was passed on 04.07.2024 in reference to Section 33A read with Section 22 of Water Act, 1974. Proceedings further show that against the inspection dated 04.04.2024, Project Proponent submitted reply but other three inspections were not disclosed to it and there was no reference of even inspection dated 13.05.2024 in the show cause notice dated 22.05.2024 but the same was taken into consideration by UPPCB while passing order dated 04.07.2024. High Court, therefore, found the proceedings conducted by UPPCB in violation of principles of natural justice, hence quashed order dated 04.07.2024 with liberty to UPPCB to proceed afresh in accordance with law if it so chosen.
8
13. Applicant has also filed certain photographs as annexure A-14 claiming to have been taken on 11.07.2024 to show that untreated effluent is being discharged in the drain but these photographs as such do not contain anything which may justify inference that these photographs relate to Project Proponent since mention of the name of Project Proponent in photographs is admittedly by the applicant itself and photographs as such do not connect anything with Project Proponent.
14. We also find from record that applicant came up before Tribunal in OA 921/2024 seeking action against Project Proponent on the grounds as have been raised in this OA also, wherein, the matter when came up before Tribunal on 30.07.2024, it was brought to the notice of Tribunal that a closure order dated 04.07.2024 was passed and in view thereof, applicant withdrew OA with the liberty to file afresh if the need so arises and OA was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed vide order dated 30.07.2024.
15. It is evident from record that the factum that closure order dated 04.07.2024 was challenged in High Court in Writ Petition No.5976/2024 and the same was allowed and closure order was quashed, was not disclosed before Tribunal by applicant for which applicant explained that it was not aware of the proceedings before High Court.
16. Be that as it may, record further show that the letter dated 06.08.2024 was issued by Chief Environment Engineer, Circle-7, UPPCB permitting de-sealing of the unit in view of the judgment dated 11.07.2024 passed by High Court in Writ Petition No.5976/2024. Chief Environment Engineer, Circle-7, UPPCB also sent a letter dated 08.08.2024 to Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly directing that respondent 10 is not operating the slaughter house complying with environmental laws and therefore, it 9 would be appropriate if operation of slaughter house be allowed to any other agency/operator.
17. It further appears that without taking into consideration High Court's judgment dated 11.07.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.5976/2024, another show cause notice was issued to respondent 10 on 15.07.2024 by UPPCB after sealing the unit on 08.07.2024. Show cause notice dated 15.07.2024 and sealing proceedings were challenged by respondent 10 in Writ Petition No.6643 of 2024, M/s Marya Frozen Agro Food Products Private Limited vs. U.P.P.C.B. before High Court of Allahabad (at Lucknow) wherein an impleadment application was also filed by Shailesh Singh, the applicant before us, i.e., Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.2 of 2024, M/s. Marya Frozen Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. U.P. Pollution Control Board and Others. Writ Petition came up before High Court on 04.09.2024 when High Court was informed by UPPCB that show cause notice dated 15.07.2024 has been cancelled by UPPCB vide letter dated 02.09.2024. Project Proponent before High Court states that in view of such cancellation of order dated 02.09.2024, nothing remains for adjudication. This was opposed by the applicant-Shailesh Singh before High Court and he prayed that his impleadment application be converted into Public Interest Litigation but High Court declined the said request observing that it is open to applicant seeking impleadment to file a Public Interest Litigation after proper research or approach National Green Tribunal as may be permissible in law. Judgment dated 04.09.2024 of High Court reads as under:
"1. Heard Shri Satish Chandra Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Kartikey Dubey, Sunil Chaudhary, Ashish Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri L.P. Misra, learned counsel for the U.P. Pollution Control Board/ respondent nos.1 to 5 and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent no.6.
2. This petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-10
"A. Issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.07.2024 contained in Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition, B. Issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Show Cause Notice dated 15.07.2024 contained in Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition, C. Issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Sealing order dated 06.07.2024.
D. Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to de-seal the Industry of the petitioner and to direct the respondents to not to interfere in the running of the petitioner's industry except in accordance with law."
3. Today, a supplementary affidavit has been filed annexing therewith an order passed by the Chief Environment Officer (Circle-7), U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow dated 02.09.2024, by which order dated 15.07.2024 has been cancelled. Now the petitioner states that nothing survives for adjudication.
4. Ms. Preeti Singh, Advocate who has filed an application for impleadment on behalf of the applicant, who claims to be a journalist and had earlier initiated some proceedings against the petitioner before the National Green Tribunal at New Delhi, states that this Court should convert this petition into Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) as it is a case of connivance between U.P. Pollution Control Board and the petitioner. We are not convinced by this argument. If the applicant seeking impleadment has locus or a cause to maintain a Public Interest Litigation, he can very well file a Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) after proper research or approach the National Green Tribunal, as may be permissible under law, but we see no reason to convert this petition, which is in essence an adversarial litigation albeit involving issues of environment, as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
5. In view of the subsequent orders passed by the U.P. Pollution Control Board, nothing survives for adjudication.
6. The writ petition is disposed of.
7. We, however, make it clear that this order shall not be treated as an affirmation or disapproval of the order dated 02.09.2024, which has been passed by the Chief Environment Officer (Circle-7), U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow nor of the stand of the petitioner in the writ petition as we have not adjudicated the merits of the issues involved but have disposed of the petition in view of the subsequent development, as noticed."
11
18. High Court very categorically observed that disposal of Writ Petition does not mean that the order dated 02.09.2024 has been affirmed or disapproved since nothing has been adjudicated on merits and Writ Petition has been disposed in the light of the subsequent developments.
19. Applicant thereafter, preferred a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.1869 of 2024, Shailesh Singh vs. Bareilly Nagar Nigam and 9 others before High Court but it was found that the requisite disclosures as required in the rules of High Court were not made in the Writ Petition and in view thereof, petitioner Shailesh Singh withdrew the above Writ Petition seeking liberty to file a fresh one after proper pleadings. Liberty was granted and Writ Petition was dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2024 which reads as under:
"1. In the absence of requisite disclosure in the petition, as mandated by sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 as regards public interest Litigation petitions, counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a properly constituted fresh petition.
2. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty prayed for."
20. Thereafter, the applicant-Shailesh Singh filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.2186 of 2024, Shailesh Singh vs. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board and 9 Others, before Allahabad High Court. But referring to the provisions of NGT Act, 2010, High Court declined to examine the issue raised by petitioner and permitted petitioner to avail alternative remedy before this Tribunal, vide judgment dated 18.11.2024, which reads as under:
"1. Heard Ms. Preeti Singh and Sri Sunkalan Porwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel for U.P. Pollution Control Board and Sri Shyam Mani Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Nagar Nigam.
2. The instant petition has been filed purportedly in public interest for a direction to the State respondents to take action against the tenth 12 respondent i.e. M/s Marya Frozen Agro Food Products Private Limited for running a slaughter house in gross violation of environmental laws.
3. The tenth respondent is engaged in business of frozen meat products and in connection with the said business it is running a slaughter house in respect of which allegations have been levelled for violation of environmental norms.
4. A closure order was passed by the U.P. Pollution Control Board (U.P.P.C.B.) on 04.07.2024 for violation of provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The said order was challenged by the tenth respondent in a writ petition, which was allowed and closure order dated 04.07.2024 was set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice vide order dated 11.07.2024. Thereafter, U.P.P.C.B. passed a fresh closure order on 15.07.2024. It was again subjected to challenge by the tenth respondent by filing a writ petition. During pendency of writ petition, the closure order was revoked by U.P.P.C.B. by order dated 02.09.2024. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the tenth respondent was disposed of by order dated 04.09.2024, as having been rendered infructuous.
5. It is noteworthy that in the said petition, the petitioner herein tried to intervene and also made a request for the said petition being converted into a public interest litigation. However, the said request was not acceeded to and in relation thereto, the following observation was made:
"4. Ms. Preeti Singh, Advocate who has filed an application for impleadment on behalf of the applicant, who claims to be a journalist and had earlier initiated some proceedings against the petitioner before the National Green Tribunal at New Delhi, states that this Court should convert this petition into Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) as it is a case of connivance between U.P. Pollution Control Board and the petitioner. We are not convinced by this argument. If the applicant seeking impleadment has locus or a cause to maintain a Public Interest Litigation, he can very well file a Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) after proper research or approach the National Green Tribunal, as may be permissible under law, but we see no reason to convert this petition, which is in essence an adversarial litigation albeit involving issues of environment, as a Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.)."
6. It is also noteworthy that the petitioner herein complained regarding the running of the slaughter house by the tenth respondent by filing a petition before National Green Tribunal (N.G.T.), but in the meantime, the order dated 04.07.2024 came to be passed by U.P. Pollution Control Board and therefore, at that stage the N.G.T. did not 13 entertain the petition and it was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner herein to file a fresh petition, if need so arises.
7. Section 29 of the N.G.T. Act 2010 reads as follows:
"29. Bar of jurisdiction-
(1) With effect from the date of establishment of the Tribunal under this Act, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any appeal in respect of any matter, which the Tribunal is empowered to determine under its appellate jurisdiction.
(2) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle dispute or entertain any question relating to any claim for granting any relief or compensation or restitution of property damaged or environment damaged which may be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Tribunal in respect of the settlement of such dispute or any such claim for granting any relief or compensation or restitution of property damaged or environment damaged shall be granted by the civil court."
8. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is a piece of legislation included under Schedule-I and therefore, the Tribunal exercises full jurisdiction in respect of any claim regarding damage to environment on account of violation of the provisions of the said Act. The petitioner had earlier approached N.G.T. with the same grievance but at that time, his petition was not entertained, as in the meantime, closure order was passed by U.P.P.C.B. However, the petitioner was given liberty to approach the N.G.T. again, if need so arises.
9. In the circumstances aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available to him before N.G.T., which he can avail.
10. In the circumstances, we decline to examine the issues sought to be raised herein and permit the petitioner to avail the remedy available before N.G.T.
11. The petition stands disposed of accordingly."
21. Applicant thereafter came up before Tribunal in OA 1399/2024, Shailesh Singh vs. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Ors. but here again, it was found that there were serious defects in drafting of OA 14 and in view thereof, as requested by applicant, permission was granted to withdraw OA with liberty to file fresh one, if cause of action survives or continue to exist, vide order dated 08.01.2025, which reads as under:
"1. After some arguments, learned Counsel appearing for Applicant stated that there are some serious defects in drafting of Original Application (hereinafter referred to as "OA"), therefore, she may be permitted to withdraw this OA with liberty to file a fresh application, if any cause of action survives or continue to exist.
2. Request is accepted.
3. OA is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty."
22. Applicant with the above backdrop has preferred this application stating that in the light of the complaint made by Income Tax Department and the proceedings initiated by UPPCB by issuing closure order and show cause notices, it is evident that project proponent as well as owner of slaughter house i.e., respondent 2 are violating environmental laws and, therefore, they should be directed to close their operations and appropriate action for environmental compensation be taken against them. However, we find that the action taken by UPPCB in the light of the alleged violations on the part of Project Proponent have been consistently subject matter of challenge before High Court and closure order passed by UPPCB has been set aside. High Court has granted permission to UPPCB to take fresh action in accordance with law, if it so decides or chooses.
23. Applicant claims that it has obtained certain photographs showing discharge of effluent in open drains and pitiable condition of the drain. These photographs are said to have been obtained on 09.01.2025 and placed before us as annexure A-23 but there is nothing to show that these photographs have any concern with Project Proponent in question.
24. Besides the above proceedings, there is no specific averment or material against the Project Proponent in the entire OA showing that there 15 is any violation on the part of Project Proponent in respect of environmental laws which gives rise to a substantiable question relating to environment arising due to implementation of Scheduled enactment under NGT Act, 2010 i.e., Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 which requires adjudication or any action of compensation under Section 15 of NGT Act, 2010. The earlier proceedings have already been repeatedly subject matter of adjudication before High Court and adverse action taken by UPPCB has been set at naught by High Court.
25. It is true that High Court has not decided the matter on merits but it has granted liberty to UPPCB to take fresh action in accordance with law if so chooses, therefore it is for UPPCB, if it has sufficient and appropriate material, to take action against the violators i.e., respondent 2 and 10 and if there is any contravention of High Court's order, the remedy lies to get the execution thereof before High Court.
26. We repeatedly asked Learned Counsel for applicant as to whether besides the above proceedings, there is any material to show, independent thereof, that respondent 2 or respondent 10 or both of them are violating environmental laws to which Learned Counsel said that there is no other material whatsoever.
27. In the absence of such material or any averment or pleading duly substantiated, on the basis of material which was already subject matter of adjudication before High Court, we do not find that any indulgence would be justified on the part of this Tribunal, particularly in the absence of any specific pleadings to show that except material which was already subject matter of action before UPPCB and also adjudication before High Court, there is any other averment or material to show violation of 16 environmental laws on the part of Project Proponents which requires, adjudication by this Tribunal.
28. In view thereof, we do not find that any substantial question relating to environment has arisen in this OA, particularly in the absence of appropriate pleadings and material. Hence, we do not find that any case has been made out justifying indulgence of this Tribunal under Sections 14 and 15 of NGT Act, 2010.
29. However, we make it clear that the above observations do not refrain UPPCB from taking any action as permitted by High Court if it so chooses on the basis of material, if any, it has before it, after following the procedure prescribed in law.
30. OA is accordingly disposed of.
Prakash Shrivastava, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM February 20, 2025 Original Application No. 17/2025 R 17