# Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd v. State Of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 426 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-05-26 - **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Shamsher Bahadur Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sir-shadi-lal-enterprises-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43850 - **Pages:** 12 ## Headnote C.S.C., Brajesh Pratap Singh, H.N. Tripathi, R.N. Pandey, Smt. Kamla Mishra 5 All. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 427 HELD:- The Municipal Council (Nagar Palika Parishad), Shamli was competent to frame the impugned bye-laws under Section 298 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 regulating discharge of trade effluents into municipal drains. Mere overlapping or incidental encroachment into the field covered by Central enactments such as the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 does not render the bye-laws ultra vires, so long as there is no direct inconsistency. The Central Acts themselves provide that in case of inconsistency, Central law shall prevail, but do not nullify State or delegated legislation per se. The Water Act, 1974 and the Environment Protection Act, 1986 do not occupy the entire field, nor do they exclude local bodies from regulating local drainage, sanitation, and public health. After the 74th Constitutional Amendment, municipalities are constitutionally empowered under Article 243-W read with the Twelfth Schedule to regulate: Public health and sanitation Sewerage and drainage Environmental protection Disposal of industrial and commercial waste The impugned bye-laws relate to local drains passing through residential areas and directly affect public health, sanitation, and environment, which fall squarely within municipal functions. The requirement of installing a treatment plant, metering treated effluent, and payment of user charges is neither arbitrary nor confiscatory, but a reasonable regulatory measure. Absence of detailed technical standards in the bye-laws does not make them vague, as the standard prescribed is that the treated effluent must be non-hazardous to humans and animals. Levy of charges for discharge into municipal drains is justified, as the municipality is responsible for maintenance, regulation, and environmental safety of such drains. There is no violation of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The bye-laws are constitutional, intra vires, and valid. The writ petition was rightly found to be devoid of merit and dismissed. CASE LAW CITED:- T. Venkata Reddy & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, (1980) 4 SCC 295 428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Maharani Shantidevi v. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel & Others, (2001) 5 SCC 101 ## Text 426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES breach of trust. In the present case it appears a matter of breach of agreement between the parties hence it can not be termed as 'cheating' or 'misappropriation'. The opposite party No. 2/complainant may seek the remedy available for enforcement of contract or for realizing the money due to him or the loss if any suffered by him. 25. So far as question of jurisdiction is concerned, it is true that agreement was executed at Rudrapur but the material was sent to Varanasi and the same was distributed from Varanasi. Part of the payment was allegedly made from Varanasi. In such a fact situation, it would be very difficult to decide the question of jurisdiction without evidence. Therefore, in the instant case, question of jurisdiction cannot be raised in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in any case, it would have been possible to take such plea at the time of final disposal of case, but it is apparent that the complaint cannot proceed for want of ingredients of any offence. 26. Even if all the allegations in the complaint are taken at the face value, in my view, the basic essential ingredients of dishonest misappropriation and cheating are missing. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut for other remedies. Since no case of criminal breach of trust or dishonest intention of inducement is made out and the essential ingredients of Sections 405/420 IPC are missing, the prosecution of the accused persons under Sections 406/420 IPC, is liable to be quashed. 27. Accordingly, all the three applications are allowed. The proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2063 of 2012 as well as the subsequent proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2063 of 2012, under Section 406, 420 IPC, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Varanasi are hereby quashed. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. THE HON'BLE SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH, J. Writ C No.- 40114 Of 2004 Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Vivek Chaudhary, Rahul Mishra, S.P. Gupta Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Brajesh Pratap Singh, H.N. Tripathi, R.N. Pandey, Smt. Kamla Mishra 5 All. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 427 HELD:- The Municipal Council (Nagar Palika Parishad), Shamli was competent to frame the impugned bye-laws under Section 298 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 regulating discharge of trade effluents into municipal drains. Mere overlapping or incidental encroachment into the field covered by Central enactments such as the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 does not render the bye-laws ultra vires, so long as there is no direct inconsistency. The Central Acts themselves provide that in case of inconsistency, Central law shall prevail, but do not nullify State or delegated legislation per se. The Water Act, 1974 and the Environment Protection Act, 1986 do not occupy the entire field, nor do they exclude local bodies from regulating local drainage, sanitation, and public health. After the 74th Constitutional Amendment, municipalities are constitutionally empowered under Article 243-W read with the Twelfth Schedule to regulate: Public health and sanitation Sewerage and drainage Environmental protection Disposal of industrial and commercial waste The impugned bye-laws relate to local drains passing through residential areas and directly affect public health, sanitation, and environment, which fall squarely within municipal functions. The requirement of installing a treatment plant, metering treated effluent, and payment of user charges is neither arbitrary nor confiscatory, but a reasonable regulatory measure. Absence of detailed technical standards in the bye-laws does not make them vague, as the standard prescribed is that the treated effluent must be non-hazardous to humans and animals. Levy of charges for discharge into municipal drains is justified, as the municipality is responsible for maintenance, regulation, and environmental safety of such drains. There is no violation of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The bye-laws are constitutional, intra vires, and valid. The writ petition was rightly found to be devoid of merit and dismissed. CASE LAW CITED:- T. Venkata Reddy & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, (1980) 4 SCC 295 428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Maharani Shantidevi v. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel & Others, (2001) 5 SCC 101 (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. & Hon'ble Shamsher Bahadur Singh, J.) 1. Heard Sri S.D. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent-5 and learned Standing Counsel for respondents-1 and 4. None has appeared on behalf of respondents-2 and 3. 2. Petitioner, a Sugar Mill, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging vires of Bye-laws notified by Nagar Palika Parishad, Shamli District Shamli (hereinafter referred to as 'N.P.P.') in purported exercise of powers under Section 298 of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1916') published in U.P. Gazette dated 31st July 2004 for regulating and controlling discharge of "pollutant" and "effluent" within the limits of N.P.P. by commercial establishments. The relevant offending provisions contained in Bye-laws 2 to 6 reads as under: "2- कोई व्यवसातयक प्रतिष्ठान जैसे शुगर फैक्री, आईस फैक्री, छतव गृह, आयरन फउन्डी एवं अन्य व्यावसातयक प्रतिष्ठान जो पानी बाहर तनकालिा हो तबना नगरपातलका पररषद शामली की अनुमति व तबना नगर पातलका पररषद को तनधााररि शुलक जमा तकये पातलका के नाले / नाललयों में गन्दा दूलित जल प्रवालित निीं करेगा। 2. Any business establishment such as Sugar Factory, Ice Factory, Theater, Iron Foundry and other business establishments shall not release contaminated/ polluted water into the drains/ducts of Nagar Palika Parishad, Shamli without obtaining its permission and making payment of the prescribed fee to the Parishad. 3- सम्बतन्धि व्यावसातयक प्रतिष्ठान को गन्दा/दूलित जल नगरपाललका पररिद, शामली के नाले/ नाललयों में प्रवालित करने से पूवव उसे शोलित करने िेतु पाललका पररिद अलिकाररयों / कमवचाररयों की संस्तुलत के अनुरूप ट्रीटमेन्ट प्लान्ट लगाना िोगा। 3. The concerned business establishment, before releasing contaminated/polluted water into the drains/ducts of Nagar Palika Parishad, Shamli, shall have to set up a Water Treatment Plant as per recommendation of the officers/officials of the Palika Parishad for treatment of such water. 4- सम्बतन्धि व्यावसातयक प्रतिष्ठान को गन्दा/दूलित जल ट्रीटमेन्ट प्लान्ट द्वारा शेलित करने उपरान्त नगर पाललका पररिद के अलिकाररयों की संतुलि के अनुरूप लनयम शुल्क जमा कर नगरपाललका पररिद के नाले / नाललयों में प्रवालित करने से पूवव प्रवालित शोलित जल के पररमापन िेतु प्रलतष्ठान में मीटर लगाया जाना अपेलित िोगा। 5 All. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 429 4. The concerned business establishment, after the treatment of the contaminated/polluted water by the Water Treatment Plant, shall be required to install a meter to determine the volume of treated water before its release into the drains/ducts of Nagar Palika Parishad after making payment of the prescribed fee as per satisfaction of officers of the Parishad. 5- नगर पातलका पररषद के अतधशासी अतधकारी/सफाई तनरीक्षक को जब यह समाधान हो जाये तक फैक्री इत्यातद से तनकलने वाला दूलित / गन्दा जल शोलित िो गया िै और वि मनुष्य / पशुओं के ललए िालनकारक निीं िै तो वे लनिावररत शुल्क लेकर इसे प्रवालित करने की अनुमलत दे सकते िै। 5. The Executive Officer/ Sanitation Inspector of Nagar Palika Parishad on being satisfied that the contaminated/ polluted water coming out from the factory, etc. has been treated and the same is not dangerous for human beings/ animals, he may accord permission for its release after the payment of prescribed fee. 6- तनधााररि शुलक- - - अंकन 10.00 (दस रूपये) प्रति 100 तक० लीटर नोटः- तनधााररि शुलक प्रतिमाह की दर से जमा करना होगा। तजसको माह की 10 िारीख िक जमा करना होगा। 10 िारीख के बाद जमा न करने पर अंकन 100.00 (एक सौ रूपये) प्रतितदन की दर से तवलम्ब शुलक जमा करना होगा। 6. Prescribed Fee---- Rs. 10/- ( Ten rupees only) per 100 kilo litre. Note: The prescribed fee to be deposited on monthly basis shall be payable upto 10th of every month. In the event of payment not being made till the 10th, a late fee @ Rs 100/- ( One hundred rupees ) only per day shall be deposited. शातसि संयुक्त प्रान्ि नगर पातलका अतधतनयम, 1916 की धारा 299 (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त अतधकारों का प्रयोग करके यह आदेश तदया जािा है तक इस तवतध में तदये गये तकसी तनयम ििा प्रातवधान का उललंघन करने वाला प्रतिष्ठान / व्यतक्त दण्ड का भागी होगा। तजसके जुमााने की सीमा अंकन रू0 1,000.00 (एक हजार) िक हो सकिी है। यतद उललंघन करने वाला व्यतक्त/प्रतिष्ठान तनरन्िर उललंघन करिा रहे िो प्रिम दोष के तदनांक से प्रत्येक तदन के तलए अंकन 100.00 (एक सौ) रूपये अतिररक्त अिादण्ड जब िक अपराध जारी रहे देना होगा। Order In exercise of the powers conferred by the Section 299 (a) of the Sanyukta Prant Nagar Palika Act, 1916 it is ordered that the establishment/ person violating any rule and provision of this Act shall be liable to be punished subject to the maximum fine of Rs 1,000.00 (One thousand rupees) only. If erring person/ establishment makes violations persistently, an additional fine shall 430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES have to be paid @ Rs 100/- (One hundred rupees) only for each and every day since the commission of first offence till it continues ." (English translation by Court) 3. Sri S.D. Singh, learned Senior Advocate contended that regulation and control of water and air pollution is governed by Parliamentary Statutes. N.P.P. by making parallel regulatory provisions has encroached upon the field governed by principal legislations enacted by Parliament and hence, it is ultra vires of the Constitution. He further contended that in any case, provisions of Bye-laws will sub-serve to Parliamentary enactments and hence cannot be given effect to. 4. It is said that cause of action has arisen to petitioner to file writ petition when N.P.P. served a notice dated 14th September 2004 issued by Executive Officer, N.P.P., directing petitioner to install Treatment Plant and a meter to measure effluent, discharged by it, and also pay fee of Rs.100/- per kiloliter, else action would be taken under Section 299(1) of Act, 1916. 5. Sri Singh further urged that N.P.P. has neither laid down any standards, nature and kinds of Treatment Plant, which are to be installed by petitioner nor has laid down any standards for discharge of effluent and in a wholly arbitrary and vague manner has framed aforesaid Bye-laws and trying to enforce upon petitioner only with an attitude to elicit huge money in the form of fee and this is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and confiscatory in nature. 6. Petitioner claimed to be a Sugar Mill and Distillery. Sugar Mill was established in 1933 and Distillery & Chemical Work in the year 1945. Initially, the area in which aforesaid establishments were established fell outside municipal limit of N.P.P., but with the passage of time, both units have come within municipal limits of N.P.P. Both units are registered under Factories Act, 1948. Petitioner has established an Effluent Treatment Plant duly approved by U.P. Pollution Control Board, U.P., Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'U.P.P.C.B.'), which is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'Central Act, 1974'). Petitioner has obtained certificate of compliance from U.P.P.C.B. after establishing an 'Effluent Treatment Plant' as per its direction. The said plant is continuously working and is being duly supervised/checked by officials of U.P.P.C.B. They used to take samples of effluent discharged after treatment and have never found any effluent below standards setup by them in respect to treatment of effluent by said plant. 7. There is another enactment i.e. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Central Act, 1986), which also controls emission or discharge of environmental pollutant beyond prescribed standards and contain regulatory and preventive measures. 8. Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by aforesaid Statutes have prescribed standards for emission/discharge of environmental pollutant, Schedule I, Item 4 and 15 relating to Sugar Industries and Distilleries etc. contain standards for such industries and the said schedule has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 5 All. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 431 9. The entire functioning of Treatment Plant installed at petitioner's premises as also discharged therefrom is being closely monitored by U.P.P.C.B. as well as Central Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.B.'). 10. Petitioner has obtained consent as contemplated under aforesaid Central Statutes from U.P.P.C.B. and there is no provision, which requires any other consent from any other body. It is urged that the provisions of Bye-laws therefore, are ultra vires of Central Act, 1974 and Central Act, 1986. It is further said that provisions made by N.P.P. do not contemplate supervision of any qualified person with respect to Effluent Treatment Plant. It has also not determined standards of trade effluent and, therefore, it is vague and hence unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) of Constitution. 11. Sri H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent-5 stated that U.P.P.C.B. has no contest in the matter, therefore, he has nothing to say. 12. The main contesting party is respondent-2 but its counsel has not appeared to address Court, therefore, we do not have advantage of arguments in defence on behalf of N.P.P. 13. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner, referred to legislative competence of Central and State Legislature and drew our attention to Articles 246 and 249 of Constitution of India. 14. Entries 6 and 17, List II, Schedule VII of Constitution confer exclusive legislative power upon States and read as under : "6. Public health and sanitation; hospitals and dispensaries. 17. Water, that is to say, water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and water power subject to the provisions of Entry 56 of List I." 15. Since legislative power vested only in States, resolutions were passed by provincial legislations of certain States that existing local provisions are neither adequate nor satisfactory to control problem of pollution of rivers and streams due to growth of industries and increasing tendency of urbanization, therefore, there is urgent need for a comprehensive legislation. In view of such resolutions passed by several States, Parliament in purported exercise of power under Article 252(1) enacted Central Act, 1974 to provide for prevention and control of water pollution and for maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water and for carrying out aforesaid purpose to constitute regulatory bodies etc. 16. A perusal of various provisions of Central Act, 1974 shows that it regulates trade effluent, if discharged or ultimately reaches any stream or well or sewer or land. The term "pollution", "sewer", "stream" and "trade effluent" are defined in Section 2(e),(gg), (j) and (k) and read as under : 432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES "(e) "pollution" means such contamination of water or such alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of water or such discharge of any sewage or trade effluent or of any other liquid, gaseous or solid substance into water (whether directly or indirectly) as may, or is likely to, create a nuisance or render such water harmful or injurious to public health or safety, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural or other legitimate uses, or to the life and health of animals or plants or of aquatic organisms; (gg) "sewer" means any conduit pipe or channel, open or closed, carrying sewage or trade effluent; (j) "stream" includes- (i) river; (ii) water course (whether flowing or for the time being dry); (iii) inland water (whether natural or artificial); (iv) sub-terranean waters; (v) sea or tidal waters to such extent or, as the case may be, to such point as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf; (k) "trade' effluent' includes any liquid, gaseous or solid substance which is discharged from any premises used for carrying on any industry, operation or process, or treatment and disposal system, other than domestic sewage." 17. Section 24 prohibits use of stream or well or sewer or land for disposal of polluting material. Section 25 raises a similar restriction on new outlets or new discharges. Act, 1974 also provides the manner of discharge of effluent after treatment, so as to make it pollution free i.e. as per standards set out by competent authority under the said Act. The legislation under Article 252 made by Parliament after receiving resolutions of two more States on the subject on which otherwise the State Legislature is competent to legislate law will confer authority upon Parliament to enact a law on a matter which is within List II of Schedule 7. State Legislatures by resolution abdicate or surrender their power of Legislation on that subject and place it solely in the hands of Parliament. Then it is only Parliament which can legislate with respect to it and such States who have passed resolutions authorising Parliament to enact or the State which has subsequently opted such Parliamentary Act, will be deemed to have abdicated or surrendered their power to the Parliament. It is as if such matter is lifted out of List II and placed in List I of the VIIth Schedule of Constitution. This is what was observed in Thumati Venkaiah and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 1980 (4) SCC 295. However, Parliament gets conferred only that much of power as is resolved by State Legislatures to be entrusted to Parliament and not more than that. 18. In Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi Vs. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel & Ors. 2001 (5) SCC 101, State Legislature resolved to confer power upon Parliament to pass law for imposing ceiling on the holding of Urban Immovable Property. It was held that the said resolution does not result in surrendering power of State to legislate on the subject of town, planning and development. 5 All. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 433 By virtue of Article 252 (2) State Legislature also had no power to repeal or amend such an Act which by virtue of resolutions passed by State Legislature has been passed by Parliament under Article 252 (1). Only Parliament can amend or repeal in the manner laid down under Article 252 (2). An Act thus passed under Article 252 is not to be categorised as a provincial statute. Parliament does not act as delegate of States. Once it gets power to legislate on the subject of State list for which resolution has been passed by State Legislatures, thereafter it is with the domain of Parliament to act, amend and repeal in the said Legislature. 19. Central Act, 1986 has been enacted by Parliament to give effect a decision taken in United Nation Conference on Human Environment held at Stockhome in June 1972, in which India also participated and it is a statue referable to Entry 13 List I, Schedule 7 of Constitution, which reads as under : "13. Participation in international conferences, associations and other bodies and implementing of decisions made thereat." 20. It goes without saying that in view of declaration under Article 253 of Constitution such an enactment has overriding effect over any inconsistent provision under State Act. 21. The term 'Environment' has been defined in Section 2(a) and "Environmental Pollutant" and "Environmental Pollution" are defined in Sections 2(b) and (c) of Central Act, 1986 and read as under : "(a) "environment" includes water, air and land and the inter- relationship which exists among and between water, air and land, and human beings, other living creatures, plants, microorganism and property; (b) "environmental pollutant" means any solid, liquid or gaseous substance present in such concentration as may be, or tend to be, injurious to environment; (c) "environmental pollution" means the presence in the environment of any environmental pollutant;" 22. Under Central Act, 1986 rules have been framed namely, Environment Protection Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1986'), in which standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollution have been set-out, which to some extent in respect to "Trade Effluent" are more stringent than what have been provided under Act, 1974 and rules framed therein. 23. Both the statutes contain a declaration about overriding effect of provisions of those Acts. 24. Section 60 of Central Act, 1974 reads as under : 434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES "60. Overriding effect.- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act." (emphasis added) 25. Similarly Section 24 of Central Act, 1986 reads as under : "24. Effect of other Laws : (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act and the rules or orders made therein shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act. (2) Where any act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under this Act and also under any other Act then the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to be punished under the other Act and not under this Act." (emphasis added) 26. Two statutes referred to hereinabove thus deal with water and environment so as to control, prevent and clear pollution thereof in any manner. However, there are several other constitutional provisions which confer some other different powers and in furtherance whereof there may be some overlapping but that would not make those provisions, if made by State Legislature as beyond legislative competence. If there is a repugnancy in State law and law made by Parliament, Article 254 clearly provides that to the extent of repugnancy, State Act shall surrender to Central Act but that by itself cannot be said to be a statute bad for want of legislative competence. 27. A perusal of both the aforesaid statutes as also the provisions giving overriding effect to said statutes nowhere show that State Legislature, if otherwise competent to enact a legislation in respect to local bodies, which may have some overlapping provisions, it shall lack legislative competence or that a delegated legislation would be incompetent to make such provisions merely for the reasons that it has some overlapping in some aspect with Central Act, 1974 and Central Act, 1986. 28. Both central statutes have taken care with, in case of any inconsistency, making central statute to override but otherwise provincial legislation or the Rules and Regulation and Bye-laws framed there under within the purview of provincial legislation, would operate. 29. There is another aspect of the matter. Act, 1916 has been amended widely after a major amendment in Constitution by 74th Amendment Act, 1992, which came into force w.e.f. 01.06.1963. It has inserted Part IX-A in Constitution dealing with Municipalities. The purpose and objective of Part IX-A was to strengthen local bodies and to make them more independent and effective to discharge their functions as a strong and democratic local administration. The term 'Municipal area' is defined under Article 243 (P)(d) and reads as under : 5 All. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 435 "Municipal area" means the territorial area of a Municipality as is notified by the Governor." 30. N.P.P. is one of such municipal area as defined above is not in dispute. Article 243 (W) provides that subject to provisions of Constitution, Legislature of a State may, by law, endow a municipality with such powers and authority as it may deem necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government and such law may contain provisions for devolution of powers and responsibilities upon municipalities, subject to such conditions, as may be specified therein, with respect to (i) preparation of plans for economic development and social justice; (ii) performance of functions and implementation of scheme as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to matters listed in 12th Schedule. 31. 12th Schedule of Constitution reads as under : "1. Urban planning including town planning. 2. Regulation of land-use and construction of buildings. 3. Planning for economic and social development. 4. Roads and bridges. 5. Water supply for domestic, industrial and commercial purposes. 6. Public health, sanitation conservancy and solid waste management. 7. Fire services. 8. Urban forestry, protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspects. 9. Safeguarding the interests of weaker sections of society, including the handicapped and mentally retarded. 10. Slum improvement and up-gradation. 11. Urban poverty alleviation. 12. Provision of urban amenities and facilities such as parks, gardens, playgrounds. 13. Promotion of cultural, educational and aesthetic aspects. 14. Burials and burial grounds; cremations, cremation grounds; and electric crematoriums. 15. Cattle pounds; prevention of cruelty to animals. 16. Vital statistics including registration of births and deaths. 17. Public amenities including street lighting, parking lots, bus stops and public conveniences. 18. Regulation of slaughter houses and tanneries." (emphasis added) 32. Items 5 and 6 of 12th Schedule take within ambit, the quality of water allowed to be discharged in drains and sewers within the area of N.P.P. since it relates to public health, sanitation, conservancy and also when recycled for supply to beneficiaries in the area. State Legislature, pursuant to Article 243 (W), by U.P. Act No.12 of 1994, brought major amendments in Act, 1916. List I (B)(b) has been added for regulating or prohibiting discharge into drains or deposits therein of sewage, sullage, polluted water and other offences or obstructive matter. N.P.P. is basically 436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES concerned with discharge of effluent in local drains which passes through residences of local residents and entire municipal area, which may have impact upon public health, atmosphere and other things. 33. Bye-laws, impugned in this writ petition, are referable to the aforesaid provisions of Act, 1916 read with Article 243(W) and 12th Schedule of Constitution and cannot be said to be ultra vires of provisions of Constitution or Act, 1916. The mere fact that with regard to establishment of a treatment plant, requirement of Bye-law may overlap certain provisions of Central Act, 1974 or 1986 but that by itself will not make impugned Bye-law, ultra vires, since there is no want of legislative competence. Mere overlapping will not vitiate the provision itself, but if there is any inconsistency with Central Act, 1974 or 1986, both statutes have already taken care by making a declaration that provisions of Central Act shall override inconsistent provisions, otherwise other statue will continue to operate. 34. Central Act, 1974 and 1986 as also Bye-laws in question control standard of pollution in discharge of 'Trade Effluent' and if reading together, we find nothing repugnant therein or inconsistent so as to render Bye-laws inoperative. All the aforesaid provisions can be followed and observed simultaneously, therefore, firstly there is no repugnancy and want of legislative competence, therefore, impugned Bye-laws cannot be said to be ultra vires and secondly, there is no inconsistency in Bye-laws which may obstruct observance and compliance of provisions of Central Act, 1974 and 1986, hence even otherwise it cannot be said that the Bye-laws would be inoperative in view of Section 60 of Central Act, 1974 or Section 24 of Central Act, 1986. 35. Further argument is that the Bye-laws do not provide any guidelines with regard to standards of 'Trade Effluent' and level of treatment. 36. Here also we find no substance, inasmuch, as Clause 5 makes it very clear that effluent after discharge should satisfy the standard that it is not harmful for human being and animal. That is the standard set-out in the bye-laws. If an industrial establishment has given treatment to a trade effluent, which reduces its toxicity and remove harmful material after such treatment making it fit for human being and animal, it is fit for discharge as provided in Clause 5 of Bye-laws. The industry concerned only has to pay requisite fee to N.P.P. as such effluent is discharged in drains managed, regulated and controlled by N.P.P. and they have to further take care of all these things. With regard to standards of effluent treatment plant again the same thing will apply that such plant, should provide treatment to 'Trade Effluent' to the extent that it becomes clean to the extent that it is unharmful to human being and animal. 37. In view of above discussion, we find nothing obnoxious or illegal in the impugned Bye-laws. Hence, writ petition is devoid of any merit. Dismissed. 38. No. Costs. 5 All. New Age Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 437 --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE V.K. SHUKLA, A.C.J. THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA, J. Writ C No.- 64184 Of 2015 New Age Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel For Petitioner: Rohan Gupta, M.C. Chaturvedi Counsel For Respondents: C.S.C., A.K. Singh, Ashish Mishra, Nitin Sharma, Ravindra Singh HELD: • Section 29(2) vests transferee with rights as if transfer made by owner. • Lease from promoter/director/guarantor treated as freehold under valuation rules. • Corporation cannot approbate and reprobate. • OTS settlement cannot affect petitioner's rights. CASE LAW CITED:- • Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation v. Diamond & Gem Development Corp., AIR 2013 SC 1241. (Delivered by Hon'ble U.C. Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard Shri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate & Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rohan Gupta, Advocate, Shri Arindam Mukherjee, Advocate & Ms. Gargi Tuli, Advocate on behalf of petitioner, Shri Ravindra Singh, Advocate on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3, Shri Ashish Mishra, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 4, Shri Ashish Singh, Advocate on behalf of private respondent nos. 5 to 9 and learned standing counsel for the State. 2. New Age Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized signatory, Sanjay Janghu is before this Court with the following prayer:- "(i) issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of Certiorari to call for the entire records and files including the file noting of the matter pertaining to M/s Surprise Hotel Pvt. Ltd., and M/s New Age Hotels and Resorts and quash the impugned letters dated 07.10.2014 issued by