PANCHAYAT QURESHIAN AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 271 · Decided: 13-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 271 : 2023 INSC 841
271
CASE DETAILS
PANCHAYAT QURESHIAN AND ANOTHER
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1538-1539 of 2008)
SEPTEMBER 13, 2023
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI., 
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND 
MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the closure of the slaughter house 
was eﬀ ected after following due process of law.
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 – Permanent 
Lok Adalat directed the Municipal Board to close down the slaughter 
house for violation of rules and regulations, causing pollution in the 
area – SPCB issued directions u/s. 33A of the 1974 Act for closure of the 
slaughter house – Order of Permanent Lok Adalat challenged in writ 
petition – Writ petition dismissed by the High Court:
Held: On 21.11.2003, the Supreme Court stayed the order of the High 
Court – On 24.01.2004, 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 eﬄ  uents and the waste water was being discharged without 
treatment – In 2005, State Board approved the scheme for treatment of the 
trade eﬄ  uent – Commissioner was asked to intimate the action taken for 
the construction of an eﬄ  uent treatment plant – However, on 03.01.2008, 
it was found that the eﬄ  uent treatment plant was incomplete, as a result of 
which the trade eﬄ  uent was not being properly treated – On 20.02.2008, 
the Supreme Court modiﬁ ed its interim order of stay by permitting the 
SPCB to take action against the polluting slaughter house in terms of the 
statute – Thereafter, directions were issued u/s. 33A by the State Board to 
the Commissioner to close down the operation of the slaughter house – The 
issue as to whether the Permanent Lok Adalat had the jurisdiction to direct 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
272
closure of the slaughter house has since been overtaken by subsequent 
events – The SPCB has exercised its statutory powers u/s. 33A after 
ﬁ nding, upon inspection, that the waste generated from the slaughter house 
was being discharged without adequate treatment resulting in a violation 
of the applicable pollution parameters – In writ petition, a direction 
was sought to provide water to the water treatment plant and to stop the 
illegal slaughter on the streets in the city of Tonk – The petitioners in the 
writ petition cannot be oblivious of the fact that the slaughter house was 
closed as a result of the failure to meet the prescribed pollution parameters 
and since the waste which was generated from its operation was being 
discharged without proper treatment – The closure is not in pursuance of 
the direction of the Lok Adalat, but in exercise of the statutory jurisdiction 
of the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board – The petitioners are not entitled 
to any relief since the closure of the slaughter house has been eﬀ ected after 
following due process of law in terms of the statutory powers conferred 
on the Pollution Control Board u/s. 33 A of the Water Pollution Act 1974. 
[Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12]
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1538-1539 
of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.10.2003 of the High Court of 
Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCWP Nos.2823 and 2776 of 2003.
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 358 of 2011.
Appearances:
Saahil Gupta, Saeed Qadri, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Advs. for the 
Appellants.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv.,  V. K. 
Verma, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Kaushal Yadav, Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Srilok 
Nath Rath, Ms. Reena Rao, Dr. Ajay Kumar, Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Apurv 
S., Milind Kumar, Ashok Kumar Singh, Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary,   Irshad 
Ahmad, S.K. Verma, Mahesh Kasana, Ms. Aparna Rohatgi Jain, Gurmeet 
273
Singh Makker,  Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Chinmayee Chandra, Ms. Swarupama 
Chaturvedi, P.V. Yogeswaran, Mukul Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT/ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
1. The appeals1 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 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 Sansth
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.