Introduction:
The Calcutta High Court has held that the police are not the appropriate authority to determine whether neighbouring dairy farms are being operated in accordance with law or whether their activities are causing health hazards. Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, while hearing a writ petition filed by Angurbala Mondal against the State of West Bengal and others, directed the petitioner to approach the West Bengal Pollution Control Board if she wished to pursue her grievances concerning the dairy units operating near her residence.
The petition, registered as Angurbala Mondal v. The State of West Bengal and Others, W.P.A. 22494 of 2026, arose from allegations that respondent nos. 7 and 8 were operating unauthorised dairy farms or units adjacent to the petitioner’s home. Mondal claimed that the operation of these units was creating health hazards and sought intervention from the concerned police authorities to stop their functioning.
The dispute raised a question about the proper forum for complaints involving the legality and environmental or health-related consequences of dairy-farm operations. While the petitioner sought police action, the State authorities maintained that such concerns should be placed before the West Bengal Pollution Control Board, which is the relevant authority to examine matters of this nature.
The Court accepted that distinction. It did not undertake an assessment of whether the dairy units were authorised, whether they were causing pollution or health risks, or whether any particular violation had occurred. Instead, it held that those questions could not be decided by the police in the manner sought by the petitioner. The appropriate course was for her to approach the Pollution Control Board for adjudication.
The decision is therefore concerned primarily with the proper authority to examine the complaint, rather than with the merits of the allegations against the neighbouring dairy farms. It leaves the petitioner free to place her grievance before the competent environmental authority, while making clear that the police are not the forum for determining the regulatory and health-related issues raised in the writ petition.
Arguments of the Parties:
Angurbala Mondal approached the High Court alleging that respondent nos. 7 and 8 were running unauthorised dairy farms or units immediately adjacent to her residence. According to her grievance, the operation of these units was causing health hazards and adversely affecting her living environment. She sought directions requiring the concerned police authorities to take appropriate steps against the alleged unauthorised operations and to stop the dairy farms from functioning.
The petitioner’s request was framed around the need for intervention by the police. Her case, as set out in the summary of the proceedings, was that the neighbouring units were operating unlawfully and that their continued functioning was creating a risk to health. She accordingly sought a direction from the Court that would require the police to act on the complaint.
The State and the private respondents opposed the petition. One submission made on their behalf was that the petitioner herself was running a dairy farm. That contention was placed before the Court as part of the opposition to her request. The available case summary does not indicate that the Court made a finding on the petitioner’s own alleged dairy-farm operation, nor does it record any determination that this allegation either validated or defeated her complaint against the neighbouring units.
The State authorities also questioned whether the police were the proper body to decide the matters raised. They submitted that if Mondal believed the neighbouring dairy farms were being operated without the necessary authorisation, or that their activities were causing health hazards, she should approach the West Bengal Pollution Control Board. The State’s position was that the dispute required examination by the authority responsible for considering the relevant environmental and regulatory issues, rather than by the police.
This distinction was central to the proceedings. The petitioner sought police intervention to stop the dairy units, while the State maintained that the allegations required assessment by a specialised authority. The question before the Court was thus not simply whether the petitioner had raised a grievance, but whether the police could properly be directed to decide the legality of the dairy operations and determine whether they were causing health hazards.
The private respondents also opposed the petition. However, the summary does not provide their detailed submissions beyond recording their opposition and the contention that the petitioner herself operated a dairy farm. It would therefore be inappropriate to attribute any additional legal or factual arguments to them.
Court’s Judgment:
After considering the submissions, Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya held that the police authority was not the appropriate forum to decide the issues raised by Mondal. The Court observed that determining whether the dairy farms or units were being operated in accordance with law, and whether their operation was causing health hazards, required consideration by the competent authority rather than the police.
The Court stated:
“Police authority is not the appropriate authority to decide whether dairy farms/units are being run by respondent nos. 7 & 8 in accordance with law or not and whether running of such dairy farms cause health hazard.”
The observation identifies the limits of the relief sought in the writ petition. The petitioner’s allegations involved two related but distinct questions: whether the dairy units were being operated lawfully, and whether their operation was causing health hazards. The Court held that the police were not the appropriate authority to determine either question.
The ruling does not amount to a finding that the dairy farms were lawful or that they were not causing harm. Equally, it does not establish that the allegations made by the petitioner were correct. The Court’s conclusion was confined to the identity of the authority competent to examine the dispute. The legality of the units and the alleged health consequences were left for consideration by the Pollution Control Board.
The Court accordingly directed the petitioner, if aggrieved by the operation of the dairy farms, to approach the concerned authority of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board for adjudication of the dispute. The Board was identified as the appropriate forum for the petitioner to pursue her complaint.
The direction reflects a basic distinction between police functions and regulatory adjudication. A complaint that an activity is unauthorised or is causing environmental or health-related harm may require technical and regulatory scrutiny. The Court’s order makes clear that such questions cannot be resolved merely by asking the police to decide whether a dairy farm complies with the applicable requirements or creates a health hazard.
At the same time, the Court did not foreclose the petitioner’s ability to seek relief. Rather than deciding the substantive allegations itself, it pointed her towards the authority it considered competent to examine them. The petitioner may therefore place her concerns before the Pollution Control Board, which can consider the dispute within its jurisdiction.
The available summary does not record any discussion of statutory provisions, detailed technical standards, or judicial precedents. It would consequently be inaccurate to suggest that the Court relied on a particular section of environmental legislation or followed a cited precedent. The reasoning set out in the summary rests on the Court’s conclusion that the police were not the appropriate authority for the determinations sought.
Nor does the summary indicate that the Court ordered the dairy farms to close, directed the police to remove or seal the units, or made a final determination about their authorisation. The outcome was procedural and forum-specific: the petitioner was required to approach the Pollution Control Board if she wished to have her grievance adjudicated.
The decision in Angurbala Mondal v. The State of West Bengal and Others thus clarifies the proper channel for a complaint of this kind. Where a grievance concerns whether dairy units are operating in accordance with law and whether their activities are causing health hazards, the petitioner must seek examination by the competent regulatory authority. The police cannot be treated as the body responsible for making those determinations.
The writ petition was disposed of on that basis, with the petitioner directed to approach the West Bengal Pollution Control Board for adjudication of her grievance. The Court’s order does not resolve the underlying factual dispute, but identifies the forum in which it should be pursued.