IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No. OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

AKILUREHMAAN … PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF UP & ORS … RESPONDENTS

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No. 2 & 3

I, , presently at, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as under:

1. That we are Respondent No. 2 & 3 in the instant Special Leave

Petition, fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case

and as such competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the present affidavit is filed by Respondent No. 2 & 3 competent

to swear this affidavit is on behalf of the Respondent no. which shall

be treated as same.

2. That I have read over and explained in vernacular the contents of the

Special Leave Petition and I am filing the present affidavit in reply to

the aforesaid Special Leave Petition with a liberty of this Hon'ble

Court to file a detailed affidavit as and when necessary.

3. That at the very outset the answering Respondent denies each and

every averment and contention raised in the Special Leave Petition

except those which have been expressly admitted by the deponent in

this affidavit.
4. That the present Special Leave Petition has been filed by the

petitioner with an oblique motive and is outright misuse of the court

process, by taking recourse to deliberate and purposive suppression of

facts to deflect the course of judicial proceedings and thus, deserves to

be dismissed.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

1. That the UPPCB has cancelled the NOC previously issued to the Unit

because the report of UPPCB clearly shows that the pollution caused

by the unit is above the human capacity and violates the rule

mentioned under Schedule I of the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

2. That the Government of India has imposed ad-hoc moratorium on

expansion and setting of new industries except white category to

control air pollution by TAJ TRAPEZIUM ZONE AUTHORITY

(TTZ) and the Petitioner is covered under the said Notice dated.

True copy of the Notification dated __ is annexed herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE

3. That one Chand filed O.A. No. 7 of 2014 before Hon’ble National

Green Tribunal, New Delhi. It is further submitted that the said Chand

has also filed O.A. No. 63 of 2014 which came up for hearing on

11.12.2014 when the following order was passed:

“A joint inspection report has been placed on record. This

reports points out serious deficiencies having a direct impact

on environment. In these circumstances, we do not permit the

unit to operate on trial basis and/or otherwise.

In the meanwhile, if the Project Proponent wishes to take any

remedial measures the same shall be taken at his own risk and

responsibility and without claiming any equity in this case. The

 same Committee, may inspect it after remedial measures are

taken and place a comprehensive report on record. One of the

aspects of the decision which the Committee entirely

overlooked is the availability of raw material and the capacity

of the Unit to deal with its slaughtering and simultaneously

preventing and control pollution from the Unit in question

which apparently is located in the residential area.

The Committee, if necessary, would consult the concerned

Authority in terms of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India passed in matter of Laxmi Narayan Modi Vs.

UOI & Ors. 2014(2) SCC 417.

Thereafter the said Original Applications came up for hearing on

29.04.2015 when Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi has

passed the following order:

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

“In view of our order dated 11th December, 2014, we see no

reason to keep these Applications pending before us. The

Project Proponent is at liberty to move the Tribunal as and

when he so desire. Till then a specific order is made that the

Unit shall not be permitted to operate on trial or any other

purposes.

With the above directions, Original Application No. 7 of 2014

& Original Application No. 63 of 2014 finally stand disposed of

without any order as to costs.

4. That as per the direction of Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, New

Delhi inspection was done and report was submitted, however at the

time of inspection Petitioner was slaughtering 110 buffalos per day as

 against the capacity of 150 buffalos per day. Generating set was found

not equipped with the acoustic enclosure and height of stack was also

less. The slaughterhouse was also not adhering with the NOC of SLC

dated 21.10.2016, NOC from Central Ground Water Authority has not

been taken. The unit has not installed CCTV cameras. No record of

ETP operation, rending plant operation and generator operation has

been maintained. Treated effluent was beyond the prescribed norms

and other various deficiencies.

5. That as this Hon’ble Court has passed order of status quo in respect of

TTZ area in M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India and there is a provisional

moratorium imposed by MoEF & CC for expansion of any industry or

setting up of a new industry except in white category, the Appellant’s

unit cannot be permitted to operate till such moratorium is lifted and

status quo order is modified. Thus the Hon’ble National Green

Tribunal, New Delhi rightly disposed of the matter and directed the

Appellant to move this Hon’ble Court for clarification of its order.

6. That the resolution passed in the meeting on 29/11/2018 regarding the

cancellation of license of the slaughter house was done according to

the agenda set on 04/10/2018 categorized as “CLEANING ISSUE” as

the Petitioner did not complied with the Environment Protection Act,

1986 and also violated point no. 2, 7, 8 & 12 of the Agreement

regarding the establishment of said PPP model slaughter house.

7. That the Hon’ble High Court rightly held in the impugned order that

the Petitioner has also approached Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of

filing Civil Appeal bearing no. _______________ but there was no

averment made to that effect nor any order of this Hon’ble Court. That
 the National Green Tribunal vide its order dated 29.05.2018 had

directed the Petitioner herein to run his unit for 3 weeks at its

optimum capacity thereafter the CPCB & UPPCB may inspect and

submit their report. In view of interim order passed by this Hon’ble

Court, NGT disposed of the petitions vide its order dated 24.09.2018

with no further adjudication. Wherein it had granted liberty to the

Petitioner to approach this Hon’ble Court seeking any clarification in

the case M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Supra). Thereafter the

Petitioner had approached this Hon’ble Court wherein the court has

ordered to list the matter with Writ Petition (c) 13381 of 1984.

PARA-WISE REPLY

1. That the contents of the Para 1 are matter of record hence needs no

reply.

2. That in reply to the contents of the Para 2 the present Special Leave

Petition doesn’t disclose any question of law warranting interference

of this Hon’ble court.

3. That the contents of Para 3 and Para 4 need no reply.

4. That the contents of Para 5.1 to 5.3 i.e. grounds are vehemently

denied. The Deponent craves the liberty of this Hon’ble court to reply

upon the contents of Preliminary objections raised in the preceding

Paras in reply there to. Further the present petition doesn’t disclose

any ground warranting interference by this Hon’ble court.

5. That the judgment of Laxmi Narayan Modi Vs. UOI & Ors. 2014(2)

SCC 417 referred in the contents of Para 5.4 is related to our case,

however the Hon’ble High Court has not erred in law and fact in

considering the said judgment.

6. That the contents of Para 5.5 & 5.6 i.e. grounds are vehemently

denied. The Deponent craves the liberty of this Hon’ble court to reply

upon the contents of Preliminary objections raised in the preceding

Paras in reply there to. Further the present petition doesn’t disclose

any ground warranting interference by this Hon’ble court.

7. That the content of Para 5.7 i.e. grounds are vehemently denied. That

the NGT in its order dated 29.05.2019 gave the permission to the

Petitioner to run the unit on trial but only for three weeks that also for

the inspection to be conducted jointly by UPPCB & CPCB to check

the pollution caused by the unit. That the petitioner is misleading this

Hon’ble court by not referring the said judgment of NGT in its

entirety.

The order passed by NGT on 29.05.2019 clearly states that-

“For the purpose of inspection, the unit may run for three

weeks with its optimum capacity. In the meanwhile, CPCB and

UPPCB may inspect and submit their report to the Tribunal.

The cost of inspection be paid by the unit.”

True Copy of the said Judgment of NGT dated 29.05.2019 is herein

annexed as ANNEXURE ----------

8. That the contents of Para 5.8 to 5.10 i.e. grounds are vehemently

denied. The Deponent craves the liberty of this Hon’ble court to reply

upon the contents of Preliminary objections raised in the preceding

Paras in reply there to. Further the present petition doesn’t disclose

any ground warranting interference by this Hon’ble court.

9. That the contents of Para 6.1 are matter of record and hence need no

reply.
 10.That the contents of Para 6 i.e. grounds are vehemently denied. The

Deponent craves the liberty of this Hon’ble court to reply upon the

contents of Preliminary objections raised in the preceding Paras in

reply there to. Further the present petition doesn’t disclose any ground

warranting interference by this Hon’ble court.

11.That no additional fact or ground has been pleaded in this affidavit.

In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, the present

Special Leave Petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed

and the impugned order is entitled to be upheld.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

I, above named deponent do hereby state on solemn affirmation that

the contents of the foregoing paras are true and correct to my knowledge and

I believe the same to be true and that nothing material has been concealed

therefrom.

Verified at __________ On __________, 2019.

DEPONENT

DRAWN BY: FILED BY

SHANTANU SHARMA DIVYESH PRATAP SINGH

ADVOCATE ADVOCATEON RECORD

FOR THE RESPONDENT