JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri M.L.Rai learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Sri Pankaj Srivatava learned counsel appearing 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 slaughter house on Hapur Road Meerut built over an area of 14930 meters of land belonging to the Nagar Nigam Meerut, of which 9000 meters 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 there from 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 12.5.01 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 20.5.01 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 Section133 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, II 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 judgement dated 28.10.09 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 property, copy whereof has been filed as Annxure 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(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. ZA and LR Act 1950. 4. On the aforesaid pleadings the petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus/prohibition and quo warranto directing the respondents not to interfere in the old furnace business of the petitioner which is being carried on by him at Hapur Road, Meerut, till the modernized slaughter house is established in Meerut at the place proposed by the Nagar Nigam Meerut. 5. According to the stand taken by Nagar Ayukta Nagar Nigam Meerut in his counter affidavit the relief claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted not only because the petitioner has failed to show that he has any statutory or legal right to carry on the business of boiling animal parts in his furnaces but also because the status of the petitioner is no better than that of an unauthorized occupant who has illegally encroached upon the land belonging to the Nagar Nigam Meerut on which the slaughter house established and managed by the Nagar Nigam is running and has illegally constructed furnaces thereon but also for the reason that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and he has not only distorted the facts but has also concealed material facts including the orders passed by the Apex Court and the U.P.Pollution Control Board directing for removal of furnaces which were being illegally run in the vicinity of the slaughter house Meerut on Hapur Road. 6. 6. According to the stand of the respondent No. 6 the Hon’ble Supreme Court is monitoring the construction of modernized slaughter houses in the entire country and the issue is still sub-judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Apex Court has passed several orders in this regard on 7.10.09 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 309 of 2003, Laxmi Narain Modi v. Union of India, copies whereof have been filed as Annexure CA1 and CA 2 to the counter affidavit of answering respondent. 7. Respondent No. 1 further pleaded that the petitioner has no legal right to construct the furnaces within the territorial limits of Nagar Nigam Meerut by erecting huge furnaces of dimension of 50 ft 12 ft and carry on the profession of burning bones of the animals slaughtered in the slaughterhouse for the purpose of extracting the fat etc there from. 8. It is further the case of the respondent No. 6 that under the definition of slaughter house no person is authorized to construct furnaces and burn animal waste. The petitioner alongwith other persons had illegally built 544 huge furnaces on the Hapur Road, Meerut in which the slaughtered animals’ waste was being burnt which was procured by the petitioner from the animals slaughtered not only in the Hapur Road Slaughter house but also from nearby place outside the limits of Nagar Nigam Meerut causing tremendous air and water pollution. 9. The scientific lab of the U.P. Pollution Control Board conducted water and air tests in an around the slaughter house area in District Meerut and submitted a report on 25.10.2004 reporting therein excessive water and air pollution resulting from the illegal slaughter and burning of the hide and bones in the furnaces whereupon a direction of immediate closure of the aforesaid activities was issued vide report of U.P. Pollution Control Board dated 24.2.2005, copy whereof has been filed as annexure CA-7 to the counter affidavit. 10. The Scientific Officer of the Regional Office of the U.P. Pollution Control Board in his letter (Annexure CA- 8 to the counter affidavit) stated that no rendering plant was set up by any of the persons who were carrying on profession of burning animal bones through furnaces. 11. 10. The Scientific Officer of the Regional Office of the U.P. Pollution Control Board in his letter (Annexure CA- 8 to the counter affidavit) stated that no rendering plant was set up by any of the persons who were carrying on profession of burning animal bones through furnaces. 11. Thereafter on the basis of the aforesaid reports on the U.P. Pollution Control Board and the Scientific Officer Regional Office of the U.P. Pollution Control Board, Nagar Nigam Health Officer submitted a report on 28.9.2008 to the Nagar Ayukta accompanied with a list of persons who were illegally carrying on the illegal trade of burning animal bones and wastes in their furnaces (Copy of the report dated 28.9.08 has been filed as Annexure 9 to the rejoinder affidavit.) 12. On 4.2.2009 the Regional Officer U.P.Pollution Control Board also submitted a report to the Nagar Nigam and district administration Meerut directing forthwith closure of the activities of such persons and a reminder was sent by the Regional Officer to the authorities of Nagar Nigam on 11.2.2009 where after the Nagar Nigam issued notice to all the persons including the petitioner who were illegally running furnaces on the land of the Nagar Nigam and by letter dated 4.2.2009 copy whereof is on record as annexure CA-10, the Regional Officer U.P.Pollution Control Board, Meerut, informed the U.P. Pollution Control Board Lucknow, that in response to the notice issued to the persons running illegal furnaces in and around the Meerut slaughter house only 8 persons submitted their reply and a request was made by the said letter that appropriate legal proceedings be drawn against such persons who were illegally running the furnaces. 13. In the counter affidavit it has also been stated that due to the public nuisance created by the petitioner and other persons, who were running furnaces various complaints were made to the National Human Rights Commission whereupon a high Power Committee comprising of officials of National Human Rights Commission inquired into the matter and submitted a report and summoned the entire district administration including Nagar Ayukta Meerut and ordered forthwith closure of illegal activities by the petitioner and other members of the petitioner’s society. Copy of the report of the National Human Rights Commission has been filed as Annexure CA- 3 to the counter affidavit. Copy of the report of the National Human Rights Commission has been filed as Annexure CA- 3 to the counter affidavit. In the said report categorical finding has been recorded that animal wastes were being boiled in the illegal furnaces in the open causing pollution of air and environment while the members of public are made to suffer for no fault of their and the people of Meerut found foul smell emanating from the illegal furnaces to be most objectionable part of the running of the slaughter house. In the said report it was also mentioned that all the furnaces had been constructed on the land belonging to the Nagar Nigam without any authority of law. 14. The respondent No. 6 in his counter affidavit further came up with the case that the petitioner is not carrying of his business for the last 50 years and the letter dated 12.5.01 which has been referred to by the petitioner as a compromise/ directive to provide alternative place of business to the petitioner and other similarly placed persons is neither a directive nor a compromise but a private communication from one authority to another and that too in respect of the shifting of the slaughter house. 15. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that all the furnaces including those of the petitioners were demolished between 25.10.09 and 31.10.2009 and the averment made in the writ petition that the respondents are going to demolish the petitioner’s furnaces is absolutely false and incorrect. In fact after obtaining an ex parte interim order from this Court on 19.11.2009 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 23857 of 2009, by concealing material facts and without impleading Nagar Nigam Meerut as a party in the said writ petition the petitioner is making efforts to reconstruct the furnaces which cannot be permitted. 16. The petitioner filed a Rejoinder affidavit controverting the averments made in the counter affidavit. Alongwith the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner filed a copy of the registered sale deed dated 18.12.1974 by which he claims that his father purchased the land on which the petitioner is carrying on his business. 16. The petitioner filed a Rejoinder affidavit controverting the averments made in the counter affidavit. Alongwith the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner filed a copy of the registered sale deed dated 18.12.1974 by which he claims that his father purchased the land on which the petitioner is carrying on his business. In the rejoinder affidavit it has also been asserted that an intervention application has been moved before the Chairman/Members of the National Human Rights Commission with the prayer for recalling the order dated 3.6.2009 passed by National Human Rights Commission, which according to the petitioner is still pending before the Commission. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being the owner of the land on which he has constructed his furnaces and the petitioner having customary right to carry on his ancestral profession of collecting and boiling animal bone through his furnaces, the respondents have no power to interfere with the petitioner’s right to carry on his profession and to demolish the furnaces and action taken by the respondents in this regard is in contravention of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the respondents are discriminating in the matter of demolition of furnaces which are existing on the land of the slaughter house functioning on the Hapur Road, Meerut and it is absolutely incorrect to allege that the petitioner’s furnaces have been demolished. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the respondents have no authority of law to stop the petitioner from carrying on his profession in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 19.11.2009. passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24387 of 2009. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that since the question of livelihood of the petitioner is involved the respondents cannot be permitted to demolish the petitioner’s furnaces and to stop him from carrying on his business on the ground that the activities carried on by the petitioner are resulting in pollution of air and environment and also causing health hazards to the residents of Meerut unless an alternate site is provided to the petitioner for running his business in accordance with the compromise/ letter dated 12.5.2001. 21. 21. Sri Pankaj Srivastav appearing for respondent No. 6 submitted that the entire exercise to demolish the illegal furnaces constructed by the petitioner and the members of his so called society on the land belonging to the Nagar Nigam Meerut on the Hapur Road, in which the slaughter house is located has been undertaken by the Nagar Nigam and the District Administration in compliance of the directions issued by the Apex Court vide different orders passed in Writ Petition (Civil) 3191/2003 Laxmi Narain Modi v. Union of India and others which arises from district Meerut itself, copies whereof have been filed as Annexure Nos. CA-1 and CA-2 to the counter affidavit and the orders issued by the U.P.District Pollution Control Board, with a view to stop the air and water pollution and check the health hazards to which the residents of Meerut have been exposed due to the running of the furnaces in the Meerut city by the petitioner and other persons. 22. Sri Pankaj Srivastav, next submitted that the petitioners and the members of his alleged society who have encroached upon the land belonging to the Nagar Nigam Meerut on which the slaughter house is located and erected furnaces thereon, have no legal or statutory right to carry on their profession. They have neither been granted any license/contract by the Nagar Nigam nor any permission to run the furnaces nor they have any right to carry on their business. 23. He further submitted that the petitioner has been carrying on the business without obtaining any no objection certificate either from the District Authorities, Nagar Nigam or the U.P. Pollution Control Board and in view of the alarming report given by the High Power Committee of the National Human Right Commission highlighting the hazards to which the residents of Meerut have been exposed as a result of the illegal activities of the petitioner there is no justification for permitting the petitioner to continue with his illegal and obnoxious activities. Sri Pankaj Srivastav lastly submitted that no discrimination was being done in the matter of demolition of furnaces and all the furnaces have been demolished. 24. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 25. Nagar Nigam Meerut, whose action is being questioned before us is a local authority constituted under the U.P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959. 24. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 25. Nagar Nigam Meerut, whose action is being questioned before us is a local authority constituted under the U.P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959. The appellant Corporation is a local authority constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959 (the Act) as a local authority, indisputably it has a large number of public duties and functions to perform; maintenance of slaughterhouse being one of them, Chapter XVI of the Act inter alia provides for regulation of slaughterhouses. Sections 422, 423 and 438 of the said Act are set out herein below : "422. Municipal Commissioner’s power in respect of Corporation, markets and slaughterhouses, etc. Sections 422, 423 and 438 of the said Act are set out herein below : "422. Municipal Commissioner’s power in respect of Corporation, markets and slaughterhouses, etc. Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rule and bye-laws framed thereunder the Municipal Commissioner shall have the power— (a) upon being authorised by the Corporation in that behalf, to construct, purchase, take on lease or otherwise acquire any building or land for the purpose of establishing a Corporation market or a Corporation slaughterhouse or stockyard within, and with the prior sanction of the State Government, without the limits of the Corporation and of extending or improving any existing Corporation market or slaughterhouse; (b) from time to time, to build and maintain such Corporation markets, slaughterhouses and stockyards and such stalls, shops sheds, pens and other buildings or conveniences as may be deemed necessary for the use of the persons carrying on trade or business in, or frequenting, such Corporation markets, slaughterhouses or stockyards; (c) to provide for maintaining in any such Corportion markets such buildings, places, machines weights, scales and measures for weighing and measuring goods, sold therein as he shall think fit; (d) upon being authorised by the Corporation in that behalf, to close any Corporation market or slaughterhouse or stockyard or any portion thereof and to dispose of as the property of the Corporation the premises occupied for any market to slaughterhouse or stockyard or any portion thereof so closed; (e) with the previous sanction of the Corporation, to prohibit by public notice from time to time within a distance of fifty yards of any Corporation market the sale or exposure for sale of the commodities or of any of the commodities specified in the notice ordinarily sold in the said Corporation market and with like sanction to cancel or modify the such notice at any time; (f) to charge for the occupation or use of any stall, shop, standing shed or pen or other building in a Corporation market, slaughterhouse of stockyard, and for the right to expose goods for sale in a Corporation market and for weighing and measuring goods sold in any such market and for the right to slaughter animals in any Corporation slaughterhouses, such stallages rents and fees as shall, from time to time be fixed by him with the approval of the Executive Committee, in that behalf; (g) with the approval of the Executive Committee, from the stallages, rents and fees leviable as aforesaid or any portion thereof, for any period not exceeding one year at a time; or (h) to put up to public auction, or, with the approval of the Executive Committee, dispose of, by private sale, for privilege of occupying or using any stall, shop, standing, shed or pen or other building in a Corporation market, slaughterhouse or stockyard for such term and on such conditions as he shall think fit. 423. Opening of private markets and of private slaughterhouses.—(1) The Corporation shall from time to time determine whether the establishment of new private markets or the establishment or maintenance private slaughterhouses shall be permitted in the city or in any specified portion of the city. (2) No person shall establish a private market for the sale of, or for the purpose of exposing for sale, animals intended for human ‘food’ or any article of human food or livestock or articles of food for livestock or shall establish or maintain a private slaughterhouse except with the santion of and after obtaining a licence from the Municipal Commissioner who shall be guided in giving such sanction and licence by the decisions of the Corporation at the time in force sub-section (1) : Provided that the Municipal Commissioner shall not refuse to give sanction or to grant licence for running a private market or a slaughterhouse already lawfully established on the appointed day if application for such sanction and licence is made within two months of the appointed day, except on the ground that the place where the market of slaughterhouse is established fails to comply with any requirements of this Act or of any rules or bye-law framed thereunder. (3) When the establishment of a private market or a slaughterhouse has been so sanctioned, the Municipal Commissioner shall cause a notice of such sanction to be affixed in Hindi and such other languages as the Corporation may from time to time specify on some conspicuous spot on or near the building or place where such market is to be held, Explanation.—For the purpose of sub-section (2) the owner or occupier of a place in which a private market or slaughterhouse is established shall be deemed to have established such market. (4) The Municipal Corporation shall not cancel or suspend or refuse to renew any license for keeping open a private market for any cause other than the failure of the owner thereof to comply with some provision of this Act, or with some regulation or with some bye-law. (4) The Municipal Corporation shall not cancel or suspend or refuse to renew any license for keeping open a private market for any cause other than the failure of the owner thereof to comply with some provision of this Act, or with some regulation or with some bye-law. (5) The Municipal Commissioner may cancel or suspend any licence for failure of the owner of a private market to given in accordance with the conditions of his licence a written receipt for any stallage, rent, fee or other payment received by him or his agent from any person for the occupation or use of any stall, shop, standing, shed, pen or other place therein. “Section 438. Certain things not to be kept, and certain trades and operations not to be carried on without licence.—(1) Except under and in conformity with the terms and conditions of a licence granted by the (Municipal Commissioner), no person shall— (a) .................................. (b) .................................. (c) .................................. (d) carry on or allow to be carried on, in or upon any premises— (i) .................................. (ii) any trade or operation which is dangerous to life or health or property, or likely to create a nuisance either from its nature or by reason of the manner in which or the conditions under which, the same, is or is proposed to be carried on; 26. After going through the aforesaid provisions very carefully we find that running of slaughter house does not include the business or profession of carrying on the business of burning animal waste and bones through illegally constructed furnaces and the Nagar Nigam is not obliged to permit the petitioner to carry on his obnoxious business. 27. After going through the aforesaid provisions very carefully we find that running of slaughter house does not include the business or profession of carrying on the business of burning animal waste and bones through illegally constructed furnaces and the Nagar Nigam is not obliged to permit the petitioner to carry on his obnoxious business. 27. In fact Section 438 (1)(d)(ii) of the Act imposes a duty upon the Nagar Nigam not to allow any person to carry on in or upon any premise any trade or operation which is dangerous to life or health or property or likely to create a nuisance either from its nature or by reason of the manner in which or the conditions raising of the manner in which or the conditions under which the same is or is proposed to be carried on and hence the respondent No. 6 has neither infringed any law nor any Constitutional provision in proceeding to demolish the furnaces illegally erected by the petitioner and other members of his so called society, on the land of Nagar Nigam Meerut on which the Meerut slaughter house is functioning. 28. The petitioner has failed to bring on record any document which may indicate that at any point of time the members of the petitioners Society were permitted either by the District Administration or Municipal Corporation Meerut to construct furnaces on the land on which the slaughter house is located for carrying on the profession of burning animal wastes and bones or that Nagar Nigam Meerut or Pollution Control Board had ever granted them any No objection certificate to carry on their business. 29. We have gone through the orders passed by the Apex Court in writ petition No. 3191 of 03, Laxmi Narain Modi v. Union of India, copies whereof has been filed as Annexure CA-1 and CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed by Nagar Nigam Meerut and we find that the Apex Court is closely monitoring the construction of modernized slaughter house and installation of Pollution Measures for treatment of effluent and making suitable arrangements for disposal of solid wastes in accordance with the guidelines and standards notified under the Environment Protection Act 1986. We have also gone through the inquiry report submitted by the Investigation Division of the Human Rights Commission on the Municipal Corporation Slaughter House Meerut U.P. (Annexure CA- 3 to the counter affidavit) wherein the High Power Committee after making a thorough inquiry found that the building of the existing slaughter house was old and dilapidated and in shambles and operated in obsolete pattern causing pollution and foul smell resulting in public nuisance. The Committee also found that a large area of Municipal Corporation Land on which slaughter house is built has been encroached and on it illegal furnaces have been built in which animal waste and bones are boiled resulting in emanating of foul smell causing serious health hazards to the people of Meerut and grave environmental pollution. The committee in its report made the following recommendation with regard to the illegal running of furnaces functioning in and around : Recommendations : 30. The District Magistrate Meerut may be directed to take immediate steps to: (a) stop and destroy all the illegal ‘Bhattis’ in and around the Slaughter House; (b) physically remove all the encroachments on the Municipal Corporation land where the Slaughter House is located; (c) initiate legal action against all the encroachers; and (d) construct a proper boundary wall on the entire land allotted to the municipal Corporation’s slaughter house as per revenue records.” 31. Thus in view of the directives issued by the Apex Court for establishing modern slaughter house and the recommendations made by the U. P. Pollution Control Board and National Human Right Commission and the fact that the petitioner has miserably failed to establish that he has any legal or statutory right to carry on the business which is apparently hazardous to human lives as well as to environment, no such direction as prayed by the petitioner can be issued by this Court. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. S.B.Vohra, (2004)2 SCC 150 observed as under : “A writ of mandamus is issued in favour of a person who establishes a legal right in himself. It is issued against a person who has a legal duty to perform but has failed and /or neglected to do so. Such a legal duty emanates from either in discharge of a public duty or by operation of law. It is the writ of a most extensive remedial nature.” 32. It is issued against a person who has a legal duty to perform but has failed and /or neglected to do so. Such a legal duty emanates from either in discharge of a public duty or by operation of law. It is the writ of a most extensive remedial nature.” 32. In the present case there is nothing on record which may indicate that there has either been any wrongful exercise of power by the respondents No. 6 or refusal to perform any duty. 33. The customary right on the basis of which the petitioner claims that he is entitled to carry on his ancestral business and denial of its existence by the respondents raises an issue of fact which requires taking of evidence and adjudicating upon facts for which a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not the appropriate forum. 34. Similarly, the stand taken by the petitioner that he is carrying on his business on his own land which was purchased by his father and the denial of the said fact by the Nagar Nigam again raises a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in the writ proceedings. 35. The contention of the petitioner that in view of the letter dated 12.5.01 copy whereof has been filed as annexure 6 to the writ petition, the respondent cannot demolish the petitioner’s premises unless they provide alternative site to the petitioner as promised in letter dated 12.3.1991, is concerned, the same is wholly misconceived. The letter dated 12.3.1991 is neither a compromise nor is a promise or assurance to the petitioner that his furnaces shall not be demolished unless he is provided alternative site for running his business. The said letter dated 12.5.01 neither refers to the petitioner nor it makes any such promise as asserted by the petitioner. The letter dated 12.5.01 is a departmental communication between two officers and that too in respect of the shifting of the slaughter house. 36. The next contention raised by the petitioner that the respondents cannot interfere with the petitioner’s business after the order passed by this Court dated 19.11.2008 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24387-08 directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed property is also without any force. 37. In Criminal Misc. 36. The next contention raised by the petitioner that the respondents cannot interfere with the petitioner’s business after the order passed by this Court dated 19.11.2008 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24387-08 directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed property is also without any force. 37. In Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24387 of 2008, the petitioner had challenged the validity of the order passed under Section 133, Cr.P.C. as well as the revisional order. The order directing the parties to maintain status quo was passed in context of the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. There is nothing in the interim order dated 19.11.2009 which may be construed as a permission to the petitioner to carry on his business of running furnaces. The order merely provides that status quo with regard to the property in dispute shall be maintained. The Nagar Nigam has come up with a case that the petitioner’s furnaces have already been demolished before passing of the order dated 19.11.2009 and the petitioner cannot be permitted to reconstruct his furnaces in the garb of the interim order of this Court. 38. The contention raised by the petitioner that the assertion made by the Nagar Nigam Meerut that all the furnaces of the petitioner have been demolished is absolutely incorrect as would be evident from the perusal of Annexure CA-4. which is the list submitted by the District Administration containing the details and the particulars of the furnaces demolished in Meerut city and the list Annexure CA-8 submitted the Regional Office, U.P. Pollution Control Board Meerut, containing the particulars of furnaces existing on the date of submission of the report. 39. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Annexure CA-4 it is shown that the petitioner had constructed six furnaces which have been demolished whereas in Annexure CA-8 number of furnaces constructed by the petitioner is shown to be 8 and hence according to the own showing of the respondents at least two furnaces of the petitioner are still existing. 40. The contention raised by the petitioner is absolutely untenable. The person Mohammad Shafiq mentioned in CA- 8 who is shown to have built 8 furnaces is a different person from the petitioner as his father’s name mentioned in the said list is Faiyaz Ahmad whereas the name of the petitioner’s father indisputably is Inam Ellahi. 41. 40. The contention raised by the petitioner is absolutely untenable. The person Mohammad Shafiq mentioned in CA- 8 who is shown to have built 8 furnaces is a different person from the petitioner as his father’s name mentioned in the said list is Faiyaz Ahmad whereas the name of the petitioner’s father indisputably is Inam Ellahi. 41. Thus the petitioner has failed to prove that all his furnaces have not been demolished. 42. The petitioner has totally failed to show that the respondents are discriminating in the matter of demolition of furnaces and the action of the respondents is in contravention of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India or the Directive Principles of the State Policy or the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act or Nagar Nigam Adhiniyam in stopping the petitioner and other members of his society from carrying on the business/profession of burning animal waste and bone through their furnaces and in demolishing the furnaces illegally erected by the petitioner and other members of his society. The Nagar Nigam Meerut is performing the statutory duty cast upon it under Section 438(1)(d)(ii)of the Act as there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the trade which is being carried on by the petitioner and the members of his society is dangerous to life and health of the residents of district Meerut and the same is creating nuisance by the reason and the manner and the conditions in which it is being carried on that too illegally and without any sanction of law. 43. We also have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands and has concealed material facts in the writ petition and orders passed by Apex Court and the U.P. Pollution Control Board. The material filed alongwith the counter affidavit shows that the U.P. Pollution Control Board had issued notice to the petitioner before proceeding to order the Nagar Nigam Meerut to demolish all the illegally constructed furnaces to which he did not submit any reply and according to the own showing of the petitioner he has moved an application for recalling of the order passed by the National Human Rights Commission (Annexure 3) which is still pending. All these facts were not disclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition. 44. All these facts were not disclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition. 44. The petitioner by his conduct has totally dis- entitled himself from grant of any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 45. As a result of the above discussion we find no reason to issue any mandamus as prayed by the petitioner as it is apparent from the material on record that that action of the respondents impugned by the petitioner in this writ petition is being taken pursuant the directions issued by the National Human Rights Commission and the U.P. Pollution Control Board and in the? exercise of powers conferred upon Nagar Nigam under Section 438(2) of the Act.? Even otherwise the petitioner has failed to establish that he has any subsisting and legally enforceable right to carry on the business of boiling animal waste and bones in his furnaces. We also cannot ignore the settled law that where ever there is a conflict between the private right and a public interest, the Courts while issuing prerogative writs should necessarily consider the effect on larger public interest thereof. 46. The Apex Court in the case of Ramniklal N. Butta v. State of Maharashtra and others, (1997) 1 SCC 134 observed as here-under : “The Courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indeed any of their discretionary powers” 47. There is sufficient material on record indicating that if the petitioners are permitted to carry on their profession, the same will cause environmental pollution and serious health hazards to the residents of Meerut and in case any such writ of mandamus as prayed by the petitioner is issued the same shall adversely effect the public of Meerut at large. 48. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 49. There shall be no order as to costs. ————