NGT Declines Intervention in Slaughterhouse Pollution Case Citing Prior High Court Adjudication and Lack of New Evidence - 2025-03-12

```markdown

NGTRefuses to Re-examine Slaughterhouse Pollution Allegations, Cites Prior High Court Rulings

New Delhi – February 20, 2025 – The Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal ( NGT ), presided over by Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava , Judicial Member Justice Sudhir Agarwal , and Expert Member Dr. A. Senthil Vel, has disposed of an application seeking action against M/s. Marya Frozen Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd., a slaughterhouse operator in Bareilly . The NGT declined to intervene, citing the applicant's failure to present new evidence of environmental violations beyond those already adjudicated upon by the Allahabad High Court.

Case Background: Journalist Raises Environmental Concerns

The application was filed by journalist Shailesh Singh , represented by Advocates Ms. Preeti Singh and Mr. Sunklan Porwal , alleging that M/s. Marya Frozen Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd. (Project Proponent), operating a slaughterhouse owned by Bareilly Nagar Nigam (BNN), was in violation of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

Singh claimed the slaughterhouse exceeded its permitted slaughtering limit of 300 buffaloes per day, expanded its facilities illegally, operated a non-functional Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP), and caused severe environmental pollution, including water and air contamination and unbearable odour. He sought the cessation of operations, action against defaulting officials, environmental compensation, and the constitution of a monitoring committee.

Allegations and Prior Legal Battles

The applicant presented evidence including news articles and a 2017 notice from the Uttar Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) citing violations. However, the judgment reveals a history of legal proceedings between UPPCB and the Project Proponent, including multiple closure orders issued by UPPCB and subsequently challenged and often overturned by the Allahabad High Court.

Notably, UPPCB issued a closure order which was challenged by the Project Proponent in the High Court. The High Court disposed of the writ petition based on the Project Proponent's undertaking to adhere to the 300 animals per day limit. However, subsequent Income Tax raids indicated potential violations with slaughtering exceeding 800-1000 buffaloes per day.

UPPCB then issued further show cause notices and closure orders based on joint inspections revealing ETP failures, absence of a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), stench, overcapacity, illegal fuel use, underage animals, and non-functional cameras. These actions too were challenged in the High Court, which quashed a closure order due to procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice principles.

NGT 's Observation: No New Substantiated Material

The NGT observed that the applicant's claims were largely based on information already considered by the High Court in previous litigations. The Tribunal pointed out that photographs submitted by the applicant lacked credible connection to the Project Proponent's operations.

Crucially, the NGT noted the applicant's counsel admitted that there was "no other material whatsoever" beyond the proceedings already adjudicated in the High Court to demonstrate ongoing environmental violations.

> "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..."

Decision and Implications

The NGT concluded that no substantial new environmental question had arisen requiring its intervention under Sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act, 2010. The Original Application was therefore disposed of.

However, the Tribunal explicitly clarified that its order does not prevent UPPCB from taking fresh action against the Project Proponent if the Board possesses new material and follows due legal procedure, as permitted by the High Court.

> "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."

This judgment underscores the importance of presenting fresh and independent evidence in environmental disputes before the NGT , especially when the matter has already been subject to judicial scrutiny in higher courts. It also highlights the ongoing legal battles surrounding the operations of the Bareilly slaughterhouse and the persistent challenges in ensuring environmental compliance. ```