The statutory powers of the Pollution Control Board under Section 33A of the Water Pollution Act 1974 were upheld, and the closure of the slaughter house was found to be in compliance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI.

1. The appeals¹ [Civil Appeal Nos. 1538-1539 of 2008] arise from a judgment and order dated 15 October 2003 of a Division Bench at the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. In addition, there is a writ petition² [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 358 of 2011] under Article 32 of the Constitution which has been heard with the civil appeals.

2. The underlying facts are thus:

An application was submitted before the Permanent Lok Adalat at Tonk, Rajasthan by the Sarva Seva Sansthan stating that a slaughter house situated in proximity to National Highway No. 12 was conducting its activities in violation of rules and regulations, causing pollution in the area. On 2 April 2003, the Permanent Lok Adalat directed the Municipal Board Tonk to close down the slaughter house within a month. The District Collector and the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board were directed to ensure compliance.

3. The State Pollution Control Board³ [“SPCB”] issued directions under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974⁴ [“Act of 1974”] for the closure of the slaughter house on the ground that it did not have consent to operate and for absence of an authorization under the Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 1988.

4. The order of the Permanent Lok Adalat was challenged by Panchayat Qureshian in a writ petition⁵ [SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2823 of 2003] before the Rajasthan High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition by an order dated 15 October 2003.

5. A Special Leave Petition was instituted before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution for challenging the order of the High Court. On 21 November 2003, this Court stayed the order of the High Court. On 24 January 2004, during the course of an inspection by the State Board, it was found that the slaughter house did not have arrangements for treatment and disposal of effluents and the waste water was being discharged without treatment. Samples were collected during the course of the inspection of the trade effluent. The observed values were found to be in breach of permissible limits prescribed under Schedule VI of the Environment (Protection) Rules 1986.

6. On 27 April 2004, the State Board informed the Commissioner of the Municipal Council that the slaughter house had not made arrangements for treatment and disposal of effluents generated and the waste was being discharged without treatment. The Commissioner was directed to submit a feasibility report. On 13 September 2004, the Commissioner of the Municipal Council submitted an application for consent to operate under Sections 25/26 of the Act of 1974. On 21 September 2004, the Commissioner was called upon to show-cause why the application for obtaining consent should not be refused. The State Board refused the application for consent by an order dated 2 November 2004 on the ground that the Commissioner had failed to respond to the notice to show-cause. The Commissioner thereafter submitted an application on 9 March 2005 for obtaining consent to operate under Sections 25/26 of the Act of 1974. On 2 May 2005, the State Board directed the Commissioner to submit certain information. Pursuant to it, the Commissioner responded on 6 June 2005. On 25 June 2005, the State Board approved the scheme for treatment of the trade effluent subject to the condition that the prescribed norms would be achieved and proper arrangements would be made to utilize the treated water.

7. On 8 July 2005, the Commissioner requested the State Board to approve the design of the effluent treatment plant for the treatment of the trade effluent. On 11 August 2005, the State Board informed the Commissioner that it had already approved the scheme presented by the Commissioner. The Commissioner was however asked to intimate the action taken for the construction of an effluent treatment plant. Another inspection was conducted on 30 November 2005 followi