Allahabad High Court Quashes Slaughterhouse's CCA Revocation, Cites Lack of Legal Basis and State's Industrial Policy

Lucknow, UP - The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, delivered a significant judgment on February 13, 2025, quashing an order by the U.P. Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) that had revoked the 'Consolidated Consent to Operate and Authorisation' (CCA) for M/S Al-Haq Foods Pvt. Ltd.'s modern animal slaughterhouse. The division bench, comprising Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi J. and Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi J., found the revocation to be unsustainable in law, emphasizing that the governing Government Order (GO) did not mandate revalidation of prior No Objection Certificates (NOCs) post-establishment and that fundamental business rights cannot be curtailed by executive orders without a clear legal backing.

Case Overview

M/S Al-Haq Foods Pvt. Ltd. challenged the Chief Environment Officer, UPPCB's order dated November 14, 2024, which cancelled its CCA (originally granted on August 23, 2024, and valid until December 31, 2028). The petitioner had established its export-oriented slaughterhouse in Unnao after obtaining various NOCs and a 'Consent to Establish' (CTE) from the UPPCB in January 2017, prior to a new GO dated July 7, 2017, which compiled existing regulations for slaughterhouses.

The revocation was primarily based on the petitioner's alleged failure to submit revalidated NOCs from District and State Level Committees as purportedly required by the 2017 GO and a previous High Court order.

Key Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Submissions (M/S Al-Haq Foods): * The revocation was without jurisdiction as there was no allegation of violating CCA conditions or pollution laws. * The GO dated 07.07.2017, which compiled existing rules (24-point compendium), did not mandate revalidation of NOCs already granted for established units, nor did it operate retrospectively. The petitioner's unit was established under a CTE granted before this GO. * The petitioner had invested ₹200 Crores and secured significant export orders, and the revocation would cause immense hardship. * An application for revalidation was made under duress and does not create estoppel against legal rights. * The UPPCB acted discriminatorily, as other industries were granted/retained CTOs without such revalidation. * Compliance with certain conditions in the 24-point compendium was only possible post-operational commencement. * The responsibility for ensuring overall compliance with the 24-point compendium rested with the State Level Committee, not solely the UPPCB for revocation purposes.

Respondent's Submissions (U.P. Pollution Control Board): * The GO dated 07.07.2017 superseded earlier orders, making compliance with its terms, including obtaining revalidated NOCs, mandatory. * A previous High Court judgment (dated 31.05.2023 in Writ-C No.4368 of 2022) operated as res-judicata, affirming the need for compliance. * The petitioner was estopped from challenging the revalidation requirement after applying for it. * The CCA was wrongly granted initially, and the responsible officers were suspended. * The report submitted by the petitioner was not a valid revalidated NOC as per the GO's committee composition requirements.

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles Applied

The High Court meticulously analyzed the GO dated 07.07.2017, the doctrine of res judicata, the principle of lex non cogit ad impossibilia, and the fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Interpretation of GO dated 07.07.2017: The Court found that the GO, issued pursuant to Supreme Court directions to compile existing standards, primarily dealt with the "establishment of a slaughter house" and approval of new Detailed Project Reports (DPRs). > "Clause 4.4 of the Government Order dated 07.07.2017 deals with approval of D.P.R. for “establishment of a slaughter house”. The petitioner had already been granted a no objection certificate to establish a slaughter house way back on 21.05.2015...and it has already been granted C.T.E. to establish a slaughter by means of an order dated 04.01.2017, i.e. prior to issuance of the G.O. dated 07.07.2017." The Court concluded: > "Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Government Order dated 07.07.2017 does not nullify the no objection certificate dated 21.05.2015 granted by the District Level Committee, the no objection certificate dated 21.10.2016 granted by the State Level Committee and the C.T.E. dated 04.01.2017 issued by the U.P. Pollution Control Board." The Court also affirmed that a GO cannot have retrospective operation to nullify rights accrued under prior permissions unless explicitly stated.

Res Judicata: The Court held that the previous writ petition (Writ-C No.4368 of 2022) dealt with the refusal to grant CTO, whereas the current petition challenged the revocation of an already granted CTO. The issues were not identical, and the scope and prospective operation of the 2017 GO were not decided in the earlier judgment. > "The issues involved in the present Writ Petition and the previous Writ Petition are not the same, so as to attract bar of res-judicata."

Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia (Law does not compel the impossible): The Court noted that the petitioner could not unilaterally initiate the revalidation process as per the GO (which required initiation by local authorities) and that even the District Magistrate acknowledged some compliances were only possible post-trial run. > "...the principle lex non cogit ad impossibilia is fully applicable to the present case."

Fundamental Right to Trade (Article 19(1)(g)): The Court emphasized that the fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade, or business can only be restricted by "law," not by a mere Government Order, especially retrospectively. > "The Fundamental Right under Article 19 (1) (g) can only be regulated by a law made by the State and it cannot be taken away by a mere Government Order, more so, when the same cannot have any retrospective operation." (citing Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. )

UPPCB's Jurisdiction and Hostile Discrimination: The Court found that the UPPCB's primary role is pollution control and it overstepped its jurisdiction by revoking CCA on grounds unrelated to pollution or CCA conditions, especially concerning revalidation of NOCs originally issued by other authorities. > "In these circumstances U.P. Pollution Control Board has no authority to direct the petitioner to obtain a revalidated no objection certificate." The Court also noted instances where other industries were not subjected to similar actions, supporting the petitioner's claim of hostile discrimination.

Court's Final Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the UPPCB's revocation order dated November 14, 2024. > "The impugned order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Chief Environment Officer, U. P. Pollution Control Board cancelling the Consolidated Consent to Operate and Authorisation issued to the petitioner on 23.08.2024 for running an animal slaughter house, is quashed."

The Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to operate its slaughterhouse and to facilitate its operations, keeping in view the State's industrial promotion policy and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated February 22, 2018, entered into between the Governor of UP and the petitioner.

The judgment underscores the importance of legal certainty for businesses, the prospective nature of executive orders, and the limitations on administrative bodies to act strictly within their statutory mandates. It also highlights the judiciary's role in protecting fundamental rights against arbitrary executive action, especially when such actions contradict stated governmental policies aimed at promoting investment and employment.