# M/s Al-Haq Foods Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 535
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-13
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 10671 of 2024
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-al-haq-foods-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53010
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

A. Environmental Law - Cancellation of
authorization - Slaughter house - Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 - Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981.

The law does not compel a man to do
that
which
he
cannot
possibly
perform.
The
order
of
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court to prepare an index of the
relevant laws for circulation to all the
concerned so that the management of
slaughtering the animals and slaughter
house should be done more efficiently,
can by no stretch of imagination be
interpreted
in
a
manner
that
the
requirements of all the 24 laws mentioned
in the compendium have to be fulfilled
before
establishment
of
a
slaughter
house. (Para 64, 66)
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B. By mere supersession of an earlier GO a
subsequent
GO,
would
not
become
effective
retrospectively
and
any GO
issued by the St. has a prospective
application. The GO 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 St. Level Committee
and the C.T.E. dated 04.01.2017 issued by the
U.P. Pollution Control Board. (Para 67, 68)

C. The judgment rendered by a coordinate
bench in an earlier Writ Petition would be
binding as a precedent on subsequent
benches in respect of the points raised
and decided in the earlier judgment. But
will not operate as a binding precedent in
respect of the points which have not been
decided therein. The scope and effect of the
GO dated 07.07.2017 and its prospective
operation has not been decided in the judgment
dated 31.05.2023. Therefore, the aforesaid
judgment will not be a binding precedent in
respect of the points which have not been
decided in that judgment and it will not restrain
this Court examining the issues raised in this
Writ Petition. (Para 71)

The petitioner's applications for grant of C.T.O.
were rejected repetitively and ultimately Writ-C
No. 4368 of 2022 filed by it challenging the
validity of rejection order dated 11.07.2020 was
also dismissed by means of an order dated
31.05.2023 without deciding the questions
whether
the
GO
dated
07.07.2017
had
retrospective
effect
and
whether
the
requirements of all the 24 sets of laws indexed
in the GO dated 07.07.2017 could be complied
with before grant of C.T.O. to the industry.
(Para 74)

The subject matter of the earlier Writ
Petition was an order refusing to grant
CTO, whereas the subject matter of the
instant Writ Petition is an order revoking
the C.T.O. granted to the petitioner. The
issue involved in the previous Writ Petition was
regarding legality of an order refusing to issue
the C.T.O. whereas the issue involved in the
instance Writ Petition is regarding the validity of
the order revoking the C.T.O. granted to the
petitioner.
D. The bar of res-judicata is attracted
when the matter directly and substantially
in issue in a case has been finally decided
by

## Text

_Characters 0–39,737 of 90,293. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39737 for what follows._

2 All. M/s Al-Haq Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
535
done by means of the cancellation order
dated 12.06.2023. It is well settled that a
show cause notice should specify particular
grounds on the basis of which action is
proposed to be taken as held by Supreme
Court in (2021) 2 SCC 551 UMC
Technologies
(P)
Ltd.
Vs.
Food
Corporation of India.

16. As regards, the sale of the said
drugs, there is no finding that the reply
given by the petitioner is correct or that of
M/s. Bhagat Distributors is correct. There
being no finding to that effect coupled with
the fact that the petitioner was never even
confronted with the reply submitted by the
distributor M/s. Bhagat Distributors. Even
the finding with regard to the sale of the
said medicines, is perverse.

17. It is essential to notice the mandate
of Section 19(3) of the Act, whereby the
person who is distributing the drugs
purchased from it a licensed distributor is
exempted even from prosecution by the
mandate of Section 19(3) of the said Act. In
the absence of any finding that the sale was
illegal at the instance of the distributor or at
the instance of the petitioner, the finding to
that effect cannot be sustained.

18. In the present case, where the
serious infraction of the Drug Inspector in
not following the mandate of Section 23,
24 and 25 of the Act, inasmuch as, the
manner of drawing the sample, which is
mandatory has not been followed. In the
absence of sampling being strictly in
accordance with the mandate of Section 23,
any infraction on that count cannot be
sustained.

19. For all the reasons recorded
herein-above, the two orders cannot be
sustained and are quashed.

20. The licence of the petitioner shall
be treated to be valid till 08.11.2024 and on
the petitioner moving an application for
renewal, the same shall be considered in
accordance with law.

21. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 535
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 10671 of 2024

M/s Al-Haq Foods Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Abhinav Singh, Lalta Prasad Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ashok Kumar Verma

A. Environmental Law - Cancellation of
authorization - Slaughter house - Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 - Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981.

The law does not compel a man to do
that
which
he
cannot
possibly
perform.
The
order
of
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court to prepare an index of the
relevant laws for circulation to all the
concerned so that the management of
slaughtering the animals and slaughter
house should be done more efficiently,
can by no stretch of imagination be
interpreted
in
a
manner
that
the
requirements of all the 24 laws mentioned
in the compendium have to be fulfilled
before
establishment
of
a
slaughter
house. (Para 64, 66)
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B. By mere supersession of an earlier GO a
subsequent
GO,
would
not
become
effective
retrospectively
and
any GO
issued by the St. has a prospective
application. The GO 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 St. Level Committee
and the C.T.E. dated 04.01.2017 issued by the
U.P. Pollution Control Board. (Para 67, 68)

C. The judgment rendered by a coordinate
bench in an earlier Writ Petition would be
binding as a precedent on subsequent
benches in respect of the points raised
and decided in the earlier judgment. But
will not operate as a binding precedent in
respect of the points which have not been
decided therein. The scope and effect of the
GO dated 07.07.2017 and its prospective
operation has not been decided in the judgment
dated 31.05.2023. Therefore, the aforesaid
judgment will not be a binding precedent in
respect of the points which have not been
decided in that judgment and it will not restrain
this Court examining the issues raised in this
Writ Petition. (Para 71)

The petitioner's applications for grant of C.T.O.
were rejected repetitively and ultimately Writ-C
No. 4368 of 2022 filed by it challenging the
validity of rejection order dated 11.07.2020 was
also dismissed by means of an order dated
31.05.2023 without deciding the questions
whether
the
GO
dated
07.07.2017
had
retrospective
effect
and
whether
the
requirements of all the 24 sets of laws indexed
in the GO dated 07.07.2017 could be complied
with before grant of C.T.O. to the industry.
(Para 74)

The subject matter of the earlier Writ
Petition was an order refusing to grant
CTO, whereas the subject matter of the
instant Writ Petition is an order revoking
the C.T.O. granted to the petitioner. The
issue involved in the previous Writ Petition was
regarding legality of an order refusing to issue
the C.T.O. whereas the issue involved in the
instance Writ Petition is regarding the validity of
the order revoking the C.T.O. granted to the
petitioner.
D. The bar of res-judicata is attracted
when the matter directly and substantially
in issue in a case has been finally decided
by the Court in a former proceeding. 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. (Para 70)

E. The Fundamental Right under Article 19
(1) (g) to carry on any occupation, trade
or business is subject to reasonable
restrictions imposed by any law made by
the St.. It can only be regulated by a law
made by the St. and it cannot be taken
away by a mere GO, more so, when the
same
cannot
have
any
retrospective
operation. This aspect was not considered by
this Court in the judgment and order dated
31.05.2023 passed in Writ-C No. 4368 of 2022.
(Para 79, 80)

F. U.P. Pollution Control Board has no
authority to direct the petitioner to obtain
a revalidated no objection certificate. The
U.P. Pollution Control Board has jurisdiction
under the Air Act and the Water Act to pass
appropriate orders to control air and water
pollution only. It has no authority to pass any
order regarding any subject which is not
concerned with the air and water pollution. The
authority which had granted the no objection
certificate dated 21.05.2015 is the District
Magistrate, who has not revoked the no
objection certificate and who has not directed
the petitioner to get the no objection certificate
revalidated, of which there is no requirement as
per the GO dated 07.07.2017 as well. (Para 82,
83)

G. The opposite parties have treated the
petitioner with hostile discrimination in
revoking
the
C.C.A
granted
to
the
petitioner
for
the
reason
that
the
petitioner had not submitted a revalidated
no objection certificate - The petitioner was
granted C.C.A. after successful trial run of the
industry. However, its commercial operations
could not commence because it has established
an export oriented industry which is mandatorily
required to be registered with Agricultural and
Processed Food Products Export Development
Authority (APEDA). The inspection of a fully
operational plant by the officers of APEDA is
2 All. M/s Al-Haq Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
537
necessary for registration of the petitioner with
the aforesaid authority. Attachment of a
veterinary doctor from the department of animal
husbandry at the petitioner's industry is
necessary as per the provisions contained in a
GO dated 13.01.2016. Although the Animal
Husbandry
Department
had
attached
a
veterinary doctor to the petitioner's industry
vide order dated 27.12.2024, this order was
cancelled by means of another order dated
31.12.2024 and the petitioner could not get
itself registered with APEDA for want of
attachment of a government veterinary doctor.
It is not the case that the petitioner is not
operating the industry, but the authorities
are not permitting the petitioner to run
the industry by creating obstacles in its
operation. (Para 85, 86)

The impugned order has been passed by
the U. P. Pollution Control Board in
disregard to the St.'s policy to promote
industries in the St. so as to increase the
opportunities of employment and attract
inflow of foreign currency to the St.. It has
been passed in utter disregard to the MOU
dated 22.02.2018 entered into by the
Hon'ble Governor of the St. agreeing to
facilitate the establishment of the industry.
(Para 88)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs
U.O.I. & ors.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 330 of
2001 (Para 11)

2. Canara Bank & anr. Vs M. Mahesh Kumar,
(2015) 7 SCC 412 (Para 41)

3. Om Gurusai Construction Co. Vs V.N. Reddy,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1051 (Para 64)

4. Kharak Singh Vs St. of U.P., AIR 1963 SC
1295 (Para 79)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

Prologue:

1. Heard Dr. Lalta Prasad Misra and
Sri Abhinav Singh, Advocates, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vinod Kumar
Shahi, the learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by Sri Shailendra Kumar
Singh, the learned Chief Standing Counsel
and Sri Akash Sinha, the learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of the State,
Sri
Satish
Chandra
Mishra,
Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Ashok Kumar
Verma, Advocate, the learned counsel for
the U.P. Pollution Control Board and
perused the records.

2. By means of the instant Writ
Petition, the petitioner has challenged the
validity of an order dated 14.11.2024
passed by the Chief Environment Officer,
U. P. Pollution Control Board (which shall
hereinafter be referred to as 'the Board'),
cancelling the 'Consolidated Consent to
Operate and Authorisation' (which will
hereinafter be referred to as 'C.C.A.')
issued to the petitioner on 23.08.2024 for
running an animal slaughter house.

3.
The
petitioner-company
is
a
registered Small Scale Industry with the
Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium
Enterprises (MSME), Government of U.P.
The petitioner applied to the District Level
Committee
headed
by
the
District
Magistrate, Unnao for grant of a no
objection certificate (NOC)/approval for
establishing a modern animal slaughter
house at UPSIDC Industrial Area, Site-II,
Unnao. The District Level Committee
obtained a report from various departments,
including Executive Engineer, Electricity
Department, Food Safety and Standards
Authority of India (FSSAI), Chief Fire
Officer, District Industries Centre, Chief
Veterinary
Officer,
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Regional
Officer,
U.P.
Pollution
Control
Board
and
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Superintendent of Police, Unnao. After
obtaining
reports
from
the
aforesaid
authorities, the District Magistrate, Unnao
granted administrative/local no objection
certificate
dated
21.05.2015
to
the
petitioner for establishing a modern export
oriented animal slaughter house.

4. No objection was granted to the
petitioner
subject
to
69
conditions
mentioned in the certificate, including the
condition that the petitioner will make
arrangements for cattle farming so as to
maintain a balance in the number of cattle;
the petitioner will establish a calf rearing
center of buffaloes, it will provide
assistance
to
animal
keepers
in
implementing schemes for running rearing
centers; the petitioner will not slaughter
animals from within the limits of District
Unnao; it will construct slaughter house
keeping in view the provisions contained in
Prevention
of
Cruelty
to
Animals
(Slaughter House) Rules, 2001; it will have
to establish a modern mechanical plant
which does not generate any solid waste
material; it will have to comply with the
provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1980 and Animal Husbandry
Rules,
2000
framed
thereunder.
No
objection certificate also provided that
before operating the slaughter house, the
petitioner will have to obtain no objection
certificate from the Director, Animal
Husbandry, Fire Fighting Department,
Ground Water Department; it will have to
obtain a Consent to Establish the unit
(CTE) from U.P. Pollution Control Board;
it will have to obtain a license under Food
Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and
Regulations, 2011 before operating the
unit; it will have to inform the District
Magistrate about the sources of raw
material and it will also inform the District
Magistrate about the personal hygiene and
health safety policy before starting the
business;
before
commencement
of
industrial operation the petitioner will have
to
comply
with
all
the
provisions
mentioned in the no objection certificate
and will have to give a written undertaking
in this regard. The petitioner will follow the
provisions
of
U.P.
Industrial
Area
Development Act. The plant can be
inspected at any time by the District
Magistrate,
the
Additional
District
Magistrate or any administrative/police
officer authorized by them, as also by the
prescribed authority of Food and Drug
Administration,
Fire
Fighting
Officer,
Regional Officer, U.P. Pollution Control
Board
as
well
as
the
Electricity
Department. The petitioner will have to
abide by all the directions that may be
issued in future and in case the petitioner
commits any irregularity or violates any of
the conditions mentioned in the no
objection certificate, the no objection
certificate shall be deemed to be cancelled
automatically.

5.
The
no
objection
certificate
mentions that reports were called from
various departments on the petitioner's
request for grant of a no-objection
certificate for establishing a modern animal
slaughter house. As per a report dated
03.09.2014 submitted by the Deputy
Commissioner, Industries, the District
Industries
Center
Unnao,
the
U.P.
Government granted approval to the
petitioner for establishing a slaughtering
and meat processing unit of capacity
22,500 tons on 10.07.2014 as an export
oriented unit which was expected to fetch
foreign exchange worth about 1,200
Crores. As per the Industrial Policies of the
Government of India and the Government
of Uttar Pradesh, establishment of food
processing units was encouraged for
2 All. M/s Al-Haq Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
539
investment.
A
recommendation
was
accordingly made for grant of no objection
certificate to the industry subject to certain
conditions.

6.
On
the
basis
of
the
recommendations made by the Executive
Engineer, Distribution Division-I, Unnao,
Chief Veterinary Officer, Unnao, Fire
Fighting Officer, Unnao, Regional Officer,
U.P. Pollution Control Board, Unnao,
Superintend of Police, Unnao, Sub Division
Magistrate,
Unnao
and
Prescribed
Authority, Food Safety and Medicine
Administration, Unnao, the State Level
Committee issued an Office Memorandum
dated 21.10.2016 granting a no objection
certificate to the petitioner for establishing
a modern slaughter house, keeping in view
the
interests
of
enhancement
of
employment
capacity,
acquisition
of
foreign currency and development of
regional industrial capacity.

7. The State Level Committee granted
the no-objection subject to 12 conditions
mentioned therein, including the condition
that it will be mandatory for the petitioner
to supply meat for local consumption as per
the requirement of local bodies; it will have
to obtain a no objection certificate within
three months before commencement of
operation of unit and it will have to abide
by all the conditions mentioned in the no
objection certificate granted by District
Magistrate, Unnao.

8. It is further mentioned in the no
objection
certificate
dated
21.10.2016
issued by the State Level Committee that
after grant of this no objection certificate
issued by the State Level Committee, an
application should be moved for grant of no
objection certificate by U.P. Pollution
Control Board and the Member Secretary,
U.P. Pollution Control Board shall grant a
no objection certificate for operating the
unit within three months and shall submit a
compliance report to the State Level
Committee within the aforesaid period.

9. The U.P. Pollution Control Board
granted 'consent to establish' (C.T.E.) for
the industry by means of an order dated
04.01.2017. The C.T.E. was granted subject
to as many as 17 conditions mentioned
therein. The C.T.E. mentions the period of
its validity to be two years within which the
modern
slaughter
house
had
to
be
constructed. The C.T.E. mentions that
operation of the unit cannot be commenced
till the consent to operate is obtained from
the
State
Board
under
the
Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Water
Act') and the Air (Prevention and Control
of
Pollution)
Act,
1981
(hereinafter
referred to as 'the Air Act'). The
application in this regard should be
submitted at least two months before
commencement of operations. It is further
mentioned in the C.T.E. that in case of
violation of any of the conditions the bank
guarantee for Rs.10,00,000/- furnished by
the petitioner can be forfeited and the
C.T.E. shall be cancelled. The Board
reserved its right to modify the conditions
of C.T.E. or to cancel it. The C.T.E. could
also be cancelled in case of failure to
submit the compliance report.

10. On 22.02.2018 a Memorandum of
Understanding was entered into between
the petitioner and the Governor of Uttar
Pradesh during U.P. Investors Summit,
2018, wherein the Governor of U.P. agreed
to facilitate the petitioner to obtain
necessary
permissions/registrations/
approvals/clearances etc. as per the existing
facilities and regulations of the State and
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also to help the petitioner to avail
incentives under various schemes of the
State/Central
Government,
wherever
applicable.
The
Governor
agreed
to
facilitate the petitioner to establish the
project in a time bound manner.

11. Meanwhile, the State Government
had issued a Government Order dated
07.07.2017 in view of the judgment dated
27.02.2017,
passed
by
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Common
Cause, A Registered Society Vs. Union of
India and others: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
330 of 2001 and other connected matters.
The Government Order incorporated an
index of
as
many
as
24
sets
of
Rules/Regulations/Acts and it states that
the
earlier
Government
Order
dated
26.11.2014
for
operation
of
animal
slaughter house was superseded and the
following directions were issued: -

"(1)
The
Food
Safety
and
Standards Act, 2006 िी धारा-89 में द
र्यी व्यवस्र्ा- The Provisions of this Act
shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any
other law for the time being in force or in
any instrument having effect of virtue of
any law other than this Act, समस्त प्रचसलत
अधधयनयमों पर ओवरराइडडिंर् इफेक्र् रखती
है। ऐसी जस्र्यत में किसी िी िारोबार िो
लाइसेन्स यनर्थत िरने िा दाययत्व The
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 िी
धारा-89 िे अन्तर्थत खाद्य सुरक्षा एविं
औिधध प्रशासन वविार् िा है, जो The
Food Safety and Standard (Licensing and
Registration
of
Food
Businesses)
Regulations, 2011 िे 2.1.2 (1)(5) िे
शेड्यूल-IV िे अन्तर्थत हाइजीन एविं सैनेर्र
आवश्यिताओिं िो दृजटर्र्त रखते हुए
लोिल अर्ाररर् से अनापवत्त प्रमार्-पत्र
प्राप्त िरते हुए लाइसेन्स/पिंजीिरर् यनर्थत
किये जाने िी व्यवस्र्ा है।

(2)
The
Food
Safety
and
Standards Act, 2006 एविं The Food Safety
and Standard (Licensing and Registration
of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011 िे
2.1.2(1)(5) िे शेड्यूल-IV िे अन्तर्थत
हाइजीन एविं सैनेर्र आवश्यिताओिं िो
दृजटर्र्त रखते हुए लोिल अर्ाररर् से
अनापवत्त प्रमार्-पत्र प्राप्त िर खाद्य सुरक्षा
एविं औिधध प्रशासन वविार् िे सिंबिंधधत
अधधिार द्वारा लाइसेन्स/ पिंजीिरर् यनर्थत
किये जाने िी िायथवाह िी जायेर्ी।

(3)
The
Food
Safety
and
Standards Act, 2006 िे ददनािंि 05.08.2011
से प्रिावी हो जाने िे फलस्वरूप उ०प्र०
नर्र यनर्म अधधयनयम, 1959 एविं नर्र
पासलिा
अधधयनयम,
1916
में
खाद्य
लाइसेन्स ददये जाने सम्बन्धी प्राववधान
यनटप्रिावी हो र्ये हैं।

(4) अद्यतन पशुधन र्र्ना िो
आधार में लेते हुए सम्बजन्धत लोिल
एर्ाररर् यदद पशुवधशाला िी स्र्ापना िा
औधचत्य पाती है, तो डी०पी०आर० मा०
उच्चतम न्यायालय िे यनदेशों व सुसिंर्त
अधधयनयमों/यनयमों/ आदेशों िे अधीन तैयार
िरायेर्ी। सिंबिंधधत लोिल एर्ाररर् जनपद
िे जजलाधधिार िे समक्ष डी०पी०आर०
सदहत आवेदन-पत्र प्रस्तुत िरेर्ी, जजसे
2 All. M/s Al-Haq Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
541
जजलाधधिार िी अध्यक्षता में र्दठत
ससमयत,
जजसमें
सदस्य
िे
रूप
में
सम्बजन्धत
जनपद
िे
वररटठ
पुसलस
अधीक्षि/ पुसलस अधीक्षि, मुख्य पशु
धचकित्साधधिार ,
सम्बजन्धत
स्र्ानीय
यनिाय
िे
नर्रआयुक्त/
अधधशािी
अधधिार / अपर मुख्य अधधिार एविं उत्तर
प्रदेश प्रदूिर् यनयिंत्रर् बोडथ िे क्षेत्रीय
अधधिार होंर्े, मा०सवोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा
पाररत यनर्थय में उजल्लखखत अधधयनयमों/
यनयमों िो दृजटर्र्त रखते हुए पर क्षर्
िरेंर्ी यदद सम्बजन्धत लोिल एर्ाररर्
द्वारा मा०सवोच्च न्यायालय िे यनर्थय में
वखर्थत
ददशा-यनदेशों
िे
अनुसार
डी०पी०आर०तैयार
िी
र्यी
हो,
और
अद्यतन पशुधन र्र्ना िे अनुसार वहॉ
पर पशुवधशाला िी स्र्ापना िा औधचत्य
पाया जाता है, तो जजला स्तर य ससमयत
द्वारा अपनी स्पटर् सिंस्तुयत सदहत प्रस्ताव
प्रमुख सधचव, नर्र वविास वविार् िी
अध्यक्षता में र्दठत राज्य स्तर य ससमयत
िे ववचारार्थ प्रस्तुत किया जाय। राज्य
स्तर य ससमयत द्वारा प्रस्ताव प्राप्त होने
पर 03 माह िे अन्दर पररयोजना िी
स्वीिृयत ददये जाने पर ववचार िर यर्ोधचत
यनर्थय लेर्ी।

(5) अतः इस सम्बन्ध में मुझे यह
िहने िा यनदेश हुआ कि उपयुथक्त सिंशोधधत
ददशा यनदेशों िे अनुसार अधग्रम िायथवाह
िरने िा िटर् िरें।
िवद य
िुमार िमलेश
प्रमुख सधचव"

12. In furtherance of the C.T.E.
granted to the petitioner on 04.01.2017, it
established a modern animal slaughter
house and on 12.06.2019, it submitted an
application to the U.P. Pollution Control
Board for grant of 'consent to operate'
(CTO) under Section 25 (1) (b) and 26 of
the Water Act and Section 21 read with
Section 22 of the Air Act. The application
was rejected by means of an order dated
06.11.2019
on
the
ground
that
the
petitioner had not submitted the required
clarification/
information
regarding
compliance of 24 points compendium
mentioned in the Government Order dated
07.07.2017.

13. On 06.06.2020 the petitioner again
applied for grant of C.T.O. and the U.P.
Pollution Control Board again rejected the
request vide order dated 11.07.2020 on the
ground that the petitioner was required to
submit a revalidated no objection certificate
from different departments as well as from
the State Level Committee as per the
Government Order dated 07.07.2017.

14. The petitioner challenged the
rejection order dated 11.07.2020 by filing
Writ-C No.4368 of 2022: M/s Al Haq Food
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others,
which was dismissed by means of an order
dated 31.03.2023 passed by a coordinate
Bench of this Court.

15. Thereafter the petitioner submitted
an application dated 02.06.2023 to the
District Magistrate, Unnao stating that it
had complied with all the requirements for
establishment of a modern animal slaughter
house as mentioned in the 24 points
542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compendium and even the order dated
11.07.2020 does not state that the petitioner
had not complied with any of the
provisions mentioned in the 24 points
compendium. The approvals/consents/no
objection certificates under the Food Safety
and Standard Act, 2006 mentioned in
Clauses 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the Government
Order dated 07.07.2017 are granted only
after issuance of the consent to operate by
the U.P. Pollution Control Board and the
petitioner
had
already
submitted
an
application for issuance of a no-objection
certificate under the Food Safety and
Standards Act, 2006. Regarding Clause 4.4
of the Government Order dated 07.07.2017
the petitioner stated that live stock census
was conducted in the years 2012 and 2019
and the order dated 06.05.2020 passed by
the Chief Veterinary Officer shows that the
number of buffaloes in the State of U.P.
had increased by 6,56,492. The District
Magistrate had issued the no objection
certificate dated 21.05.2015 and the State
Level Committee had issued a no-objection
certificate
dated
21.10.2016
after
completion of all the requisite formalities.
The petitioner had submitted its D.P.R.
(detailed project report) in the Investors
Summit organized by the State Government
as
per
the
intention
of
the
State
Government to give encouragement to its
industrial
policy
and
thereafter
a
memorandum of understanding (MOU)
was
executed
between
the
State
Government and the petitioner. After
obtaining no objection certificates from the
District Level Committee, State Level
Committee, U.P. Pollution Control Board
and
various
other
departments
for
establishment of a modern slaughter house,
the petitioner has invested₹200 Crores for
establishing the industry. The petitioner
requested for revalidation of the no
objection
certificate
dated
21.05.2015
issued by the District Magistrate, Unnao
and to refer the matter to the State Level
Committee for revalidation of the no
objection certificate dated 21.10.2016.

16.
On
19.07.2023,
the
State
Government wrote a letter to the District
Magistrate, Unnao stating that a detailed
scrutiny be carried out in light of the
terms/conditions
of
the
24
points
compendium mentioned in the Government
Order dated 07.07.2017, the earlier no
objection
certificate
dated
21.05.2015
granted to the petitioner be revalidated and
a
report/proposal
be
sent
to
the
Government as early as possible, along
with a recommendation of the District
Level Committee.

17.
On
03.07.2023,
the
Deputy
Commissioner, Industries, District Industry
Promotion
and
Entrepreneurship
Development Centre, Unnao sent a letter to
(i) the Chief Veterinary Officer, Unnao, (ii)
Assistant
Regional
Transport
Officer,
Unnao, (iii) Prescribed Authority/Assistant
Commissioner, Food Safety and Drug
Administration Unnao and (iv) Regional
Officer, U.P. Pollution Control Board,
Unnao enclosing therewith a copy of the
aforesaid letter dated 19.07.2023 sent by
the State Government and directing them to
submit a report regarding the following
points: -

Sl. No.
Department/Name of the
Officer
Point numbers
of
Compendium
1.
Chief Animal Medical
Officer
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12,
21, 22, 23
2.
Assistant
Divisional
Transport Officer
2, 7, 8
3.
Designated
Officer
/
Assistant Commissioner
9, 10, 11
2 All. M/s Al-Haq Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
543
Food Safety and Drug
Administration
Department
4.
Regional
Officer,
UP
Pollution Control Board,
Unnao
13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, 20,
24

18.
The
Deputy
Commissioner,
Industries sent a written note to the
Additional District Magistrate (Finance and
Revenue), Unnao stating that through a
letter dated 24.06.2023 information was
obtained from the Regional Officer, U.P.
Pollution Control Board, Unnao as to
whether a new D.P.R. was required for
revalidation of the no objection certificate
dated 21.05.2015. The Regional Officer
informed through a letter dated 07.07.2023
that a new D.P.R. was not required for
revalidation of the no objection certificate
dated 21.05.2015 and it provided a copy of
the D.P.R. already submitted by the
petitioner. It was proposed to obtain point
wise reports from the departments as
against the points mentioned against them
in the table given above and thereafter the
reports be placed before the District Level
Committee.

19. It appears that the District
Magistrate wrote letters dated 20.11.2023
and 16.11.2023 regarding revalidation of
the
no
objection
certificate
dated
21.05.2015
issued
to
the
petitioner
whereupon a spot verification was carried
out and point wise reports were submitted
by the concerned departments as per the
24 points compendium mentioned in the
Government Order dated 07.07.2017. The
findings based on the reports of the
concerned departments show that the
petitioner had already taken necessary
steps which could be taken till that stage
and it will comply with the other
provisions relating to operation of the
industry
after
commencement
of
operation. The report submitted by the
Committee
consisting
of
Assistant
Commissioner (Food)-II, Food Safety and
Drug Administration, Unnao, Assistant
Regional
Transport
Officer,
Unnao,
Regional Officer, U.P. Pollution Control
Board, Unnao and Chief Veterinary
Officer, Unnao mentions that the unit has
completed the basic requirements for
establishment of industry on the basis of
the 24 points compendium mentioned in
the Government Order dated 07.07.2017.

20. On 27.02.2024, the District
Magistrate,
Unnao
wrote
a
letter
addressed to (i) the Chief Veterinary
Officer, Unnao, (ii) Regional Officer,
U.P. Pollution Control Board, Unnao,
(iii) Assistant Commissioner (Food) Food
Safety and Drug Administration, Unnao
and (iv) Assistant Regional Transport
Officer, Unnao stating that as per the
reports
submitted
by
the
aforesaid
authorities in respect of revalidation of
the
no
objection
certificate
dated
21.05.2015 granted to the petitioner, a
decision regarding the following points of
the compendium would be possible only
after trial run of the industry whereas the
report
submitted
under
the
joint
signatures of the aforesaid officers does
not make any mention of trial run of
industry: -

"1. मुख्य पशु धचकित्साधधिार
उन्नाव िी आख्या ददनािंि 24.08.2023
द्वारा अवर्त िराया र्या है कि उद्योर्
द्वारा 24 बबन्दु िम्पेडडयम िे बबन्दु
सिंख्या- 1, 23 िा अनुपालन सुयनजश्चत िर
सलया र्या है तर्ा शेि बबन्दु सिंख्या-1, 4, 5,
544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6, 12, 21, 22 िा अनुपालन रायल सिंचालन
िे उपरान्त ह किया जाना सम्िव होर्ा।

2 असिदहत अधधिार / सहायि
आयुक्त खाद्य सुरक्षा एविं औिधध प्रशासन
वविार् उन्नाव- ददनािंि रदहत आख्या
प्रस्तुत अवर्त िराया र्या है कि 24 बबन्दु
िम्पेडडयम िे बबन्दुसिंख्या-9, 10, 11 िे
अनुपालन िा पर क्षर्/ जॉच रायल सिंचालन
िे उपरान्त ह किया जाना सम्िव होर्ा।

3. सहायि सम्िार्ीय पररवहन
अधधिार
उन्नाव-
आख्या
ददनािंि
23.08.2023 द्वारा अवर्त िराया र्या है
कि 24 बबन्दु िम्पेडडयम िे बबन्दु सिंख्या-
2, 7 व 8 िा पर क्षर् / अनुपालन सिंचालन
िे उपरान्त ह किया जाना सम्िव होर्ा।

4. क्षेत्रीय अधधिार उ०प्र०प्रदूिर्
यनयिंत्रर् बोडथ उन्नाव- आख्या ददनािंि
14.08.2023 द्वारा अवर्त िराया र्या है
कि उद्योर् द्वारा 24 बबन्दु िम्पेडडयम िे
बबन्दुसिंख्या-13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22 व 23
िा अनुपालन िर सलया र्या है तर्ा शेि
बबन्दुसिंख्या-14, 15, 20 व 24 िी जॉच/
पर क्षर् रायल सिंचालन िे उपरान्त ह
किया जाना सम्िव होर्ा।"

The District Magistrate further
wrote that: -

(i) The report dated 24.08.2024
submitted by the Chief Veterinary Officer,
Unnao states that the petitioner has
complied with points no.1 and 23 of 24
points compendium and points no.1, 4, 5, 6,
12, 21, 22 can be complied with only after
trial run;

(ii) Designated Officer/Assistant
Commissioner Food Safety and Drug
Administration
Department
Unnao-
Undated report submitted it has been
informed
that
testing/checking
of
compliance of points numbers 9, 10, 11 of
24 points compendium will be possible only
after conducting the trial run.

(iii)
Assistant
Divisional
Transport Officer Unnao- Report dated
23.08.2023
has
informed
that
testing/compliance of point number-2, 7
and 8 of 24 points compendium will be
possible only after conducting the trial run.

(iv) The Regional Officer, Uttar
Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Unnao -
It has been informed by the report dated
14.08.2023 that the industry has complied
with points number 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21,
22 and 23 of the 24 points compendium and
the remaining points number 14, 15, 20 and
24 can be checked / tested only after
conducting the trial run."

21. The letter directed the aforesaid
officers to clarify as to why the report does
not make any mention of trial run of the
industry and if permission for trial run is to
be granted by the government/district level,
then the authority should inform the
rules/government orders under which the
industry has to be granted permission for
trial
run
and
the
copy
of
reports/government
order
should
be
enclosed with the report.

22. On 18.04.2024 the petitioner
applied to the Member Secretary, U.P.
Pollution Control Board for grant of
Consolidated Consent and Authorization
under Section 25/26 of Water Act and
Section 21 of Air Act. On 05.08.2024, the
U.P. Pollution Control Board granted
consolidated
consent
to
operate
and
authorization (C.C.A.) under Section 25 of
2 All. M/s Al-Haq Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
545
the Water Act and Section 21 of the Air
Act and authorization under Rule 6 (2) of
the
Hazardous
and
other
Wastes
(Management
and
Trans-boundary
Movement) Rules, 2016 notified under the
Environment Protection Act, 1986 to the
petitioner for the period from 05.08.2024 to
19.08.2024.

23. The C.C.A. was granted subject to
certain
specific
conditions
mentioned
therein, including the following: -

Specific Conditions:-

This C.T.O. is granted to conduct
only trial run of the plant for two weeks
and
this
trial
run
is
based upon
revalidation report of 24 compendium in
compliance of letter of Nagar Vikas
Anubhag-8, Letter no. 3710/No-8-20172CA/12TC Dated 07.07.2017 and in
continuation to the NOC granted by
district magistrate, Unnao on dated
21.05.2015 submitted by district level
committee Unnao. The unit shall comply
all order issued by Government India and
Government of U.P. from time to time. The
unit shall comply all the direction issued by
Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High
Court, Hon'ble NGT, CPCB and UPPCB.
***

24. On 13.08.2024 the petitioner sent
an e-mail to the Regional Officer, U.P.
Pollution Control Board stating that the
trial run had been successfully commenced
on 12.08.2024 and requesting the Regional
Officer to grant C.T.O. under the Water
Act and the Air Act for final production.

25. After inspection of trial run of the
petitioner's unit, the U.P. Pollution Control
Board granted a C.C.A. to the petitioner
vide order dated 23.08.2024 which was
valid for the period from 23.08.2024 to
31.12.2028. The C.C.A. was granted
subject to 12 general conditions and 27
specific conditions mentioned in the order.

26. Merely after about two months
since grant of C.C.A. dated 23.08.2024, the
Chief Environment Officer, Circle-5, U.P.
Pollution Control Board wrote a letter
dated 25.10.2024 to the petitioner stating
that the petitioner had not submitted a
revalidated no objection certificate from the
District Level Committee and the State
Level Committee for 'establishment of the
animal slaughter house' and asking the
petitioner to show cause as to why the
C.C.A. dated 23.08.2024 be not revoked
with immediate effect.

27. On 28.10.2024 the petitioner wrote
letters to the Principal Secretary to the
Chief Minister, Government of Uttar
Pradesh
and
the
Chief
Environment
Officer, U.P. Pollution Control Board
stating that in pursuance of the C.C.A.
dated 23.08.2024 granted by the U.P.
Pollution Control Board, it had made
arrangements of export working capital of
₹ 50 Crores with State Bank of India and
had given employment enrollment to 1,000
workers of the State. It had secured export
orders worth 40 Million $ (approximately ₹
350 Crores), besides making investments to
the tune of ₹ 100 Crores in plant set up.
Thereafter it had received the notice dated
25.10.2024. The petitioner requested the
Government to facilitate 'Ease of Doing
Business' in the State to the industry and to
keep alive the investment sentiment of all
stake holders and encourage the petitioner's
initiative to contribute to the foreign
currency inflow to the State as well as
direct and indirect employment generation.

28.
On
14.11.2024,
the
Chief
Environment
Officer,
U.P.
Pollution
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Control Board passed the impugned order
revoking the C.T.O. dated 23.08.2024
granted to the petitioner. The order
mentions that the petitioner has not
obtained
a
revalidated
no
objection
certificate in terms of the Government
Order dated 07.07.2017 and in compliance
of the order dated 31.05.2023 passed by
this Court in Writ-C No.4368 of 2022. The
petitioner had submitted a report of the
District Level Committee, which did not
include members of the departments
mentioned in the Government Order dated
07.07.2017. Thus, the petitioner had made
a false statement that the report of the
District Level Committee is a revalidated
no objection certificate.

29. On 12.12.2024 an interim order
was passed in this case whereby the
impugned
order
dated
14.11.2024
cancelling
the
C.C.A.
was
kept
in
abeyance.

30.
The
Regional
Officer,
U.P.
Pollution Control Board, Unnao has filed a
counter affidavit stating that the judgment
dated 31.05.2023 passed by this Court in
Writ-C No.4368 of 2022, in which this
Court has held that it was mandatory for
the petitioner to comply with all the terms
of the Government Order dated 07.07.2017
-
including
obtaining
no
objection
certificates from the District Magistrate,
Unnao, the State Level Committee and the
U.P.
Pollution
Control
Board.
This
judgment operates as res-judicata.

31. A copy of the inspection report
dated 22.08.2024 submitted by a 3
members'
committee
consisting
of
Assistant
Scientific
Officer,
Assistant
Environment Officer and Regional Officer,
U.P. Pollution Control Board, which was
sent to the Chief Environment Officer, has
been annexed with the counter affidavit. It
states that a physical inspection of all the
units installed in the industry was carried
out on 18.08.2024. No production activity
was being conducted at the time of the
inspection. All plant and the machinery was
found to be in order. The petitioner's
representative present at the time of
inspection himself stated that the industry
was non-functional for a long period.
Minor repairs necessitated for this reason
had been completed. The inspection report
states that grant of final C.T.O. may be
considered in view of the facts stated in the
report.

32. A copy of a letter dated
19.11.2024 sent by the Regional Officer,
U.P. Pollution Control Board to the Chief
Environmental Officer (Circle-5) has also
been annexed with the counter affidavit
which states that inspection of the industry
was carried out by the authorized officer of
the Regional Office on 19.11.2024, during
which no evidence of production in the
industry was found and the industry was
closed.

33. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder
affidavit inter alia stating that the 24 points
compendium is not a new norm which has
been
introduced
by
means
of
the
Government Order dated 07.07.2017. The
Rules and Regulations mentioned in the
compendium are pre-existing Rules which
are to be complied with by any industry
even otherwise. The Government Order
dated 07.07.2017 has merely compiled the
pre-existing laws. It is nobody's case that
the petitioner has not complied with any
particular provision of the 24 points
compendium mentioned in the Government
Order dated 07.07.2017. The respondents
have failed to point out any provision of
law under which they have the authority to
2 All. M/s Al-Haq Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
547
revoke the C.C.A. granted to the petitioner
when there is no allegation of violation of
any of the conditions mentioned in it. The
petitioner has further stated that it was
granted
C.T.E.
on
04.01.2017
and
thereafter it established the industry and
applied for grant of C.T.O. for the first time
on 03.01.2019 i.e. within a period of two
years. Its application for grant of C.T.O.
was rejected by means of orders dated
03.06.2019, 09.03.2020 and 11.07.2020
and none of the aforesaid orders mentions
violation of any of the terms and conditions
of the C.T.E. and no such allegation is there
even
in
the
impugned
order
dated
14.11.2014.

34.
The
petitioner
has
filed
a
supplementary affidavit stating that it has
been granted the necessary approvals such
as (i) CTO/C.C.A.