SHAFIQ ELLAHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M. L. Rai, learned Counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for State respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Sri Pankaj Srivastava. learned Counsel for respondent No. 6 Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam, Meerut.

(2.) Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties the writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage.

(3.) The relevant facts of the case as emerging from the pleadings of the parties are that there is a slaughterhouse on Hapur Road, Meerut built over an area of 14930 sq. metres of land belonging to the Nagar Nigam, Meerut, of which 9000 sq. metres has been encroached by several persons including the petitioner who have illegally constructed large number of furnaces thereon in which animal bones are rampantly boiled and the smoke emanating therefrom recklessly perpetuates pollution of air and environment resulting in acute health hazards to the residents living in the vicinity of the slaughter-house as also in nearby surrounding localities. The petitioner who alleges himself to be the President of Jamatul-e-Qureshi Business Welfare Society, Meerut which is alleged to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act claims that he and other members of the society have been earning their livelihood for the last fifty years by carrying on the business of cleaning and boiling of waste parts and bones of the animals through their furnaces constructed around the slaughter-house and the petitioner is the owner of the land on which the petitioner's furnaces exist and has customary right to carry on the profession of cleaning and boiling the animals bones through his furnaces. The petitioner further claims that pursuant to the decision of Nagar Nigam, Meerut to shift the existing slaughter-house from Hapur Road, Meerut to some other place and to establish a new slaughter-house of modern pattern free from pollution and public nuisance, a letter dated 12.5.2001 was issued by the Inspector General of Police (Annexure-6) to the Commissioner Meerut Division Meerut, stating therein that shifting and establishing of new slaughter-house in Meerut at a new site will take some time, the persons likely to be affected by such shifting of the slaughter-house be provided with alternate sites for carrying on their business during the intervening period but the respondents without following the directives issued by the Government vide its letter dated 20.5.2001 started interfering with the petitioner's right to carry on his business. It has also been stated in the writ petition that that proceeding under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated against the petitioner at the behest of the Nagar Nigam, Meerut in respect of his furnaces before the Additional 'City Magistrate, IInd, Meerut, which was registered as Case No. 8 of 2008, and by an order passed by Additional City Magistrate, Meerut (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) the petitioner was directed to close his furnaces forthwith, failing which necessary action was to be taken against him with the help of police. The order passed by the Additional City Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge, Meerut by filing a revision, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2009, which was transferred for disposal before the Additional Sessions Judge. Court No. 13, Meerut and dismissed by him by his judgment dated 28.10.2009 copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner the orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate as well as the revisional court were challenged by him before this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3857/09 in which this Court passed an interim order on 19.11.2009 directing the parties to maintain status quo as on the date of the order with regard to the disputed properly, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The petitioner has alleged that the respondents despite having knowledge of the order dated 19.11.2009 are not obeying the same and are adamant not only to stop the petitioner from carrying on his ancestral business but also to demolish his furnaces. The petitioner further asserted that the action of the respondents is not only illegal and arbitrary but also in contravention of Articles 14, 15, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the Directive Principles of State Policy and other relevant statutes like the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 and U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950.