|
IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF Decided
On: Appellants:
AND Appellants:
Hon'ble Judges:
Counsels: Subject: Acts/Rules/Orders: Cases
Referred: Prior
History: Disposition: Case
Note:
JUDGMENT Tarun Chatterjee, J. Page 1800 1. A1-Kabeer Exports
Limited (in short 'Company') is a public company formed for the purpose of
carrying on the business of processing meat, mainly for export purposes. The
company with a view to establish a slaughter house in Rudraram village, in the
Medak. District of the State of 2. Prior to this
permission, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (for short 'A.P.P.C.B.')
also issued a 'NOC' on the application of the company filed on December 30,
1988, subject to certain, conditions concerning the treatment, of effluents and
air pollution. In the said NOC, it was inter-alia stipulated that the company
shall obtain a second NOC' and a regular consent under Sections 25 and 26 of the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 from A.P.P.C.B. before
commencing regular production. The Director, Animal Husbandry Department,
Government of Andhra Pradesh also issued a NOC in favour of the company by a
letter dated July 13, 1989, subject to compliance with the provisions of
Sections 5 and 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal
Preservation Act, 1977 (in short the 'A.P. Act) and the instructions issued
there under. 3. Subsequently, on 18th
July 1989 the Central Government (Ministry of Industry) granted a Letter of
Intent (in short 'L.O.I.') under the provisions of the Industries (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1951 (in short IDR Act') for establishment of a new
industrial undertaking to the company at the selected site mentioned herein
earlier for manufacturing of certain amount of Frozen Buffalo and Mutton Meat,
The LOI was granted, subject to the following conditions: (a) Buffaloes to be
slaughtered shall be subject to anti-mortem and post-mortem examination by the
concerned authorities. (b) Only old and
useless buffaloes shall be slaughtered and for this purpose, their production
and processing shall be subject to continuous inspection by the Municipal
Authorities. Animal Husbandry and Health Department of the State Government or
any other arrangement that the Central or the State Government may evolve for
ensuring this. (c) Slaughter of cows
of all ages and calves of cows and buffaloes male or female, shall be
prohibited. Page 1801 (d) The company shall
undertake measures for preserving and improving the breeds of the buffaloes by
adoption of suitable animal husbandry practices in consultation with the State
Government. (e) At least 90%
production of frozen buffalo meat would be exported for a period of ten years
which 'may be extended by another five years at the discretion of the
Government. (f) Adequate steps shall
be taken to the satisfaction of the Government to prevent air, water and soil
pollution. Such anti-pollution measures to 'be installed should conform, to the
effluent and emission standards prescribed by the State Government, in which
the factory of the industrial undertaking is located. (g) The new industrial
undertaking or the industrial activity for effecting substantial expansion or
for manufacture of new article shall not be located within: (i) 50 kilometers from
the boundary of the standard urban area limits of any city having a population
of more than 25 lakhs according to the 1981 census; or (ii) 30 kilometers from
the boundary of the standard urban, area limits of any city having a population
of more than 15 lakhs but less than 25 lakhs according to the 1981 census; (h) In case the location
of the industrial undertaking is in no Industry District., change of location
from No Industry District to any other area including a notified backward area
either within the same State or outside the State will not normally be allowed. 4. The recommendation was
also made by the State of 5. If we arc permitted to
read the various conditions for grant of LOI. issued by the Central Government,
carefully, it would be evident that only old and useless buffaloes shall be
available for slaughtering and their production and processing shall be subject
to continuous inspection by the Municipal Authorities, Department of Animal
Husbandly and Health Department of the State Government. Clause (c) of the LOI
speaks of total prohibition of slaughtering of cows of all ages and calves of
cows and buffaloes, male or female. Clause (d) invites the company to undertake
measures of prohibiting and improving the breeds of the buffaloes by adoption
of suitable animal husbandry practices in consultation with the State
Government, Clause (e) of L.O.I, provides that 90% of the production of frozen
buffalo meat would be exported for a period of ten years which may be extended
by five years at the discretion of the Government. Clause (f) directs to take
adequate steps to the satisfaction of the Government to prevent air, water and
soil pollution and for this purpose anti pollution measures must be installed
to enforce the effluent and emission standards prescribed by the State
Government. Clause (g) of the LOT says that a new industrial undertaking Page
1802 shall not be located either for effecting substantial expansion or for
manufacture of new article if the said location is situated within 50 km from
the boundary of the standard urban area of any city having a population of more
than 25 lakhs according to 1981 census or is located 30 kin from the boundary
of the standard urban area limit of any city having a population of more than
15 lakhs but less than 25 lakhs according to 1981 census. On 6. It is an admitted
position that for the purpose of running the slaughter house, the company, as
noted herein earlier, had applied for licences to various authorities of the
State Government as well as of the Central Government. Having been satisfied
and after holding enquiry, permission and/or licence was granted to the company
first for the purpose of making construction at the site in question and
thereafter for running the slaughter house. Such being the position and in view
of the reasons given hereinafter we cannot apprehend that the company was
permitted, by the authorities, first to make construction of the factory at the
selected site and thereafter to run the slaughter house without being satisfied
that the conditions for grant of permission and licence were observed by the
company. 7. It is not in dispute
that on the basis of the LOI and permission granted by the State of Andhra
Pradesh and other authorities including the APPGB, the company started its
construction work for installation of buildings and machineries, for the
purpose of running a slaughter house. When some construction had progressed,
the Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat concerned issued a notice in the
exercise of his power under Section 131 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Grain
Panchayat Act, 1964 suspending the permission granted for construction of the
factory building and other buildings to the company and thereby directed
stoppage of constructions until further orders. Challenging this order of the
Executive Officer, the company filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh. Some organizations opposed the proposed establishment of the
slaughter house and they were impleaded as respondents to the said writ petition.
The writ petition was, however, subsequently withdrawn by the company and
instead a revision petition was filed before the State Government questioning
the notice issued by the Executive Officer on the suspension of the
construction work which was permitted by the State Government. After healing
all the concerned parties, by an order dated 15th September 1990 the
revision case was allowed by the State Government. A bare reading of this order
would show that the order of the Executive Officer was not only directed to be
set aside but also the period of completing the construction work was extended
by one more year, from 29th of June 1989. 8. Against the order
passed in the revision, case, two writ petitions being W.P.No. 13763 and
W.P.No. 13808 of 1990 were filed in the High Court - Page 1803 one by those
organizations who were impleaded in the earlier writ petition and the other by
some individuals. These two writ petitions were admitted by a learned Single
Judge of the High Court and by an interim order, the operation of the order
passed in the revision case was suspended pending decision of the two writ
petitions. Against the aforesaid interim order, the State Government as well as
the company filed writ appeals which were admitted by a Division Bench of the
High Court, and the interim order granted by the learned Single Judge was
stayed by an interim order of the Division Bench of the High Court. When the
writ appeals came up for final hearing, the parties before the Division Bench
prayed that the writ petitions he disposed of on merits. Such stand having been
taken by the parties before the Division Bench, the writ petitions were heard
and disposed of by an order dated November 16. 1991 on merits with the
following directions: ...However, we direct that
the State Government shall prepare a detailed report regarding the water, air
and environment pollution, if any, as at present in Rudraram and surrounding
villages of Patancheru Mandal, Medak District having regard to the, provisions
of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. 1974. the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. 1981 and the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 and the rules made thereunder, the likely effect of
the setting up of the mechanized slaughter house at Rudraram village on the
prevailing environment and also its likely effect on the cattle wealth in the
area after considering the representations which the petitioners in these
writ, petitions and other interested parties may submit in writing in this
regard. The petitioners herein and other interested persons shall submit the
representations and other supporting material in writing to the State
Government within four weeks from today. The State Government shall prepare and
submit a detailed report to the Central Government, within eight weeks from the
date of receipt of the copy of Oils judgment. On receipt of the report, the
Central Government shall consider the same, having regard to the provisions
of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. 1974. the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. 1981, the Environment (Protection)
Act. 1986 and the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and pass
appropriate orders in relation to the establishment of the mechanized slaughter
house (abattoir) at Rudraram village. Patancheru Mandal, Medak District.
Andhra Pradesh. within eight weeks from the date of receipt, of the report. (Emphasis
supplied). 9. It may be kept in mind
that this order of the Division Bench by which certain directions were made by
it to the State Government as well as to the Central Government was , however,
not appealed before this Court. Pursuant to the directions given by the
Division Bench in the aforesaid order, as noted herein above, the State
Government constituted a Committee known as "Krishanan Committee" for
examining and reporting the matters referred to in the order of the High Court.
The Krishnan Page 1804 Committee constituted by the State Government submitted
its report, It was noted in the report that some fundamentalist organizations
opposed the establishment of the slaughter house on account of their religious
and sentimental opposition to the slaughter of animals, whereas the Central
Government and the Government of Andhra Pradesh permitted the setting up of this
plant subject to the conditions imposed by them. So far as the pollution of air
and water was concerned, the committee was of the opinion that if due
observance of the safeguards stipulated by the several concerned departments,
including Pollution Control Board was made by regular supervision, such
pollution of air and water could be kept within a reasonable limit. So far as
the depletion of the cattle wealth is concerned, the Committee upheld the
objections of the Food and Agriculture Department in the following words: There are valid reasons for believing that this argument,
is substantially valid. To start with the capacity of the plant is so large
that with the existing cattle wealth and possible increases thereto, will not
be able to provide adequate input to this factory for more than a year or two
unless drastic action is taken to increase the cattle wealth in the surrounding
areas. The Food and Agriculture Department have already brought out the fact
that the cattle wealth in the surrounding areas as also in the other parts of
the State is gradually going down and the cattle available for slaughter is
around 1,76 lakhs animals per year. As against, this, the existing slaughter
houses in the State are already slaughtering animals to the extent of 2.01 lakhs,
with the result that with the level of existing cattle wealth, there is no
additional input likely to be available, to cater to the huge capacity of the
plant being established at Rudraram. Food and Agriculture Department has also
brought, out the fact that it will be difficult for the factory to adhere to
the existing regulations of the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act and Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1977 and every effort: would
be made to circumvent the provisions of this Act so that adequate input supply
is maintained (for the?) factory. It was reported in the newspapers sometime
ago that a similar factory established in Goa, after operation for one or two
years had to drastically stop their operations for want of adequate input
material. 10. After expressing the
opinion, the Krishnan Committee made the following recommendation as a
condition for allowing the establishment of the slaughter house: In the circumstances it
is essential to insist, on the Company to ensure that there is an effective
programme to raise feed cattle 011 their own initiative for not less than 50%
of the capacity so that the impact on the surrounding area is limited to this
extent atleast. Further increases in capacity can he considered only if the company
increases its own feed cattle. Eventually the Company will have to produce feed
cattle for their entire extent of operations so as to minimise the impact on
the existing cattle wealth. Page 1805 If this alternative is
not acceptable to the Company, the proposal mentioned by the Food and
Agriculture Department of starting a modem abattoir with an investment of about
Rs. 15 crores may be directed to take over this plant and eventually the
unhygcnic private slaughter houses in and around the city and government,
slaughter houses can be closed and the meat, requirement, for the city may be
met from this factory. 11. We have carefully
examined the Report of the Krishnan Committee, and its recommendation for
allowing the establishment, of the slaughter house. From a plain reading of the
report and its recommendation, it cannot be doubted that the Krishnan Committee
was in favour of the establishment of the slaughter house subject to the
condition that it should raise its own cattle required by it - initially to the
extent of half and ultimately to the full extent. The committee also opined
that if the company was not willing to or not in a. position to raise its
"own cattle then the company may not to be allowed to run or its capacity
may be utilised to meet the existing requirement by diverting the cattle from
the existing slaughter houses. Prom this recommendation, it may be said that
the existing slaughter houses, big and small, government and private, were to
be closed down and the slaughter house of the company would be utilised to
meet, the present domestic requirements. It also appears from the record that
before forwarding this report to the Central Government, the Chief Secretary to
the Government of Andhra Pradesh appended a Reference note which may not be
required to be noted for our present purpose. 12. The report of the
Krishnan committee was forwarded to the Central Government, The Central
Government in its turn forwarded the report to the A.P.P.C.B. for appropriate
action. However, no order was passed by the Central Government on the said
report at all, although, the Central Government was a party to the order of the
High Court, as noted herein earlier. That apart, the High Court also in its
judgment as noted herein earlier, made certain directions to the Central
Government to pass an order after considering the report. 13. A Writ Petition being
W.P.No. 6704 of 1991 was filed by two environmentalists for issuance of a writ,
restraining the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others
from supplying/selling water to the slaughter house of the company. An interim
order was passed by the High Court on May 27, 1992 to the effect, that, the
Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others be restrained
from considering the proposals for sale of water to the company. 14. Dr. Kishan Rao
appellant, in Civil Appeal No. 3966 of 1994 along with Ahimsa Trust filed a
Writ Application being Writ Petition No. 8193 of 1992. In this writ petition an
interim order was passed to the effect that the NOC granted by the APPCB shall
be subject to further orders in the writ application. 15. Akhil Bharat Goseva
Sangh which is appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3968 of 1994 filed a Writ
Application No. 10454 of 1992 questioning the grant of permission for trial run
of the slaughter house of the company. Page 1806 16. A Writ Application
being Writ Petition No. 13062 of 1992 was filed by Dr. Kishan Rao along with
one Smt. Satyavani questioning the permissions granted for the establishment of
the slaughter house of the company. As noted hereinearlier, Writ Petition No.
8193/1992 was filed by Dr. Kishan Rao praying for similar reliefs which were
prayed by him in Writ Petition No. 13062/1992. The Division Bench in the
judgment under appeal had taken a serious objection to the filing of two Writ
Petitions by Dr. Kishan Rao for similar reliefs and observed that there was
mis-statement, on the part, of Dr. Kishan Rao saying that, relief claimed in
Writ Petition No. 13062/1992 and reliefs claimed in Writ Petition No. 8193/
1992 were different. 17. All these writ
petitions were heard together and disposed of by the High Court by common
judgment dated April 6, 1993. In the aforesaid judgment, the High Court in
substance observed as follows: (1) As the LOI granted by
the Central Government and the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Preservation of
Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977 permits slaughtering of only
useless cattle and in view of the fact that maintenance of such useless cattle
involves a wasteful drain on the nation's meager cattle feed resources, the
Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Central Government were fully justified in
granting permission for establishing and running the slaughter house. (2) In view of the
agitations by some organizations the matter was re-examined and fresh
discussions were made by different concerned departments of the State. On the
question of slaughter policy of the State and on re-examination of the issues
involved, the Director of Animal Husbandly observed on 21st
December, 1990 that" the establishment of slaughter house would hot really
result in any depletion of cattle in the State. (3) On 28.9.1991 the
issue was again considered by me Director of Animal Husbandry, who reiterated
his opinion expressed on 21.12.1990 which was also approved by the Andhra
Pradesh Cabinet. in view of the aforesaid finding made by the Division Bench it
was found by it that the establishment of slaughter house of the company would
have only "negligible effect" on rate cattle growth in the State. (4) So far as the
environment aspects were concerned, Division Bench found that the safeguards
stipulated by APPCB and other authorities of the State were sufficient to
ensure control of air and water pollution. 18. Accordingly, the
Division Bench was of the opinion that all the concerned authorities of the
State having granted requisite permissions after duly considering all the
relevant facts and circumstances, there-was 110 ground for intervening with the
establishment and operation of the slaughter house. In the said judgment while
dismissing the writ petitions, the Division Bench also directed prosecution of
Dr. Kishan Rao for Ms mis-statement that he had not tiled any other writ
petition seeking similar reliefs. 19. We may restate that writ
petition No. 10454 of 1992 filed by AKhil Bharat Goseva Sangh was also disposed
of by the Division Bench on the same day. Page 1807 In Writ. Petition No. 10454
of 1992 the main contention of the petitioner was that the State Government had
not complied with the directions made by the High Court in its judgment and
order dated 16.11.1991 and in the said Writ Petition it was prayed that until
and unless the State Government sent its report, in accordance with the
direction of the Division Bench of the High Court, to the Central Government
and the latter had taken decision thereon, the company be restrained from
functioning. On this issue, the Division Bench held that this question was
already dealt with in the judgment and therefore in this writ application there
was no need to deal with it all over again, C.A.No. 3968 of 1994 was preferred
against this judgment in this Court. 20. C.A. Nos. 3966, 3967
and 3968 of 1994 have been preferred against the judgment of the Division Bench
of the A.P. High Court delivered on 6th April, 1993. The appellant
in C.A.No.3966 of 1994 is Dr. Kishan Rao, the appellant in C.A.No. 3967 of 1994
is Smt. Satyavani whereas the appellant in C.A.No.3968 of 1994 is Akhil Bharat
Goseva Sangh. 21. Civil Appeal Nos.
3964-3965 of 1994 have "been directed against the order of another
Division Bench allowing the writ appeal preferred by the company under Clause
15 of the Letters Patent, and setting aside the interlocutory order passed by a
learned Single Judge in W.P.M.P. No. 9367/1993 arising out of W.P. No,
7483/1993, In this way the five appeals against the judgments of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh were placed before us for final disposal which were heard in
presence of the learned Counsel for the parties. 22. By an order dated 25th
October 1994 passed in C.A. No. 3968/1994 with C.A. Nos. 3964-3967/1994 Akhil
Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of A.P. and Ors. reported in (1995) Suppl. (1) SCC
370, the report of the Krishnan Committee was taken into consideration by a
Division Bench of this Court which made the following observations: We are of the opinion
that the rejection of Krishnan Committee report in the above manner really
amounts to slurring over the main recommendation of the said report. Moreover,
the learned Judges have not dealt with the failure of the Central Government to
consider the said report and pass appropriate orders pursuant, to the
directions of the High Court, in its judgment, dated November 16, 1991. The
learned Judges have observed in the said judgment that it is not possible for
the Court to go into conflicting reports of experts and that, therefore, they
should leave the matter for the judgment, of the Government. This observation
again does not lake into account the directions made by the said High Court in
its judgment referred to above. They have also observed that the Director of
Animal Husbandry has given his opinion or revised opinion, as the case may be,
after taking into consideration the objections of the Food and Agriculture
department. Though no material has been brought to our notice in support, of
the Page 1808 said statement, we shall assume that it is so. Even then the fact
remains that this reconsideration by Director, Animal Husbandry department is
said to have taken place sometime in 1990. whereas even in 1992. the Food and
Agriculture department was vet protesting with its views before the Krishnan
Committee. Above all, the said reconsideration by the Director. Animal
Husbandry department far prior to the judgment of the High Court dated November
16, 1991 does not relieve the Central Government of the obligation to consider
the Krishnan Committee report and pass appropriate orders in the matter as
directed by the judgment of the High Court dated November 16. 1901. It. was for
the Central Government, to consider the said report taking into consideration
the several facts and circumstances mentioned therein as also the contending
views expressed by the several authorities and departments referred to therein.
This, the Central Government has clearly failed to do. There is another
relevant consideration. The slaughter house has been in operation for the past
eighteen months or so. It would be possible to find out the effect, if any of
the operation of the slaughter house had on the cattle population of Medak and
adjacent and nearby districts. It would equally be relevant to ascertain, if
possible, what percentage of cattle slaughtered have been brought from other
States and what percentage from the surrounding areas. In this connection, it
is relevant to mention that the Animal Husbandry department has taken the total
cattle population of the Andhra Pradesh State which is indeed misleading. The
slaughter house is situated on the western border of Andhra Pradesh State,
almost on the trijunction of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka. In such
a situation, the slaughter house would rather draw its requirements of cattle
from the surrounding and nearby districts rather that go all the way to far
away districts of Andhra Pradesh State like Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam or for
that matter, Ncllorc and Anantapur, which are situated several hundreds of
miles away. The transport of cattle over long distance may induce the slaughter
house to go in for cattle in the nearby areas, whether in Andhra Pradesh,
Maharashtra or Karnataka - unless, of course, the cattle are available at far
cheaper rates at distant places, which together with transport charges would
make it more economic for the slaughter house to bring cattle from far away
districts or from tar away areas in the country. Therefore, taking the entire
cattle population of the Andhra Pradesh State is bound to convey an incorrect
picture. Perhaps, it would be more appropriate to take into consideration the
cattle population of, what the Krishnan Committee calls, the "hinterland"
of the slaughter house. In view of the fact
that the controversy relating to the establishment of the slaughter house has
been going on over the last several years, we think it appropriate that the
Central Government should look into all relevant, aspects, as directed by the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its judgment dated November 16. 1991. forthwith
and record its opinion before we take a final decision in the matter. The Page
1809 decision of the Central Government shall be recorded in a reasoned
proceeding, which, shall he_ placed before this Court. The further orders to be
passed would depend upon the contents of the report and the material so placed
before us. We may make it clear
that, we should not, be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits
of the aspects which the Central Government has been directed to consider by
the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Whatever we have said in this judgment is only
to indicate the failure of the Central Government, to abide by the said directions
and to record reasons in support of the direction made herein. We have also not
gone into the other questions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants.
They can be considered at a later stage after the- receipt of the material and
the report from the Central Government. (Emphasis
supplied) 23. From the above noted
observations of this Court in the appeals, we find that the propriety of the
Krishnan Committee report could be considered after the receipt of the material
and report from the Central Government. Therefore, it cannot be said that by
the aforesaid order of this Court at the intermediary stage this Court in fact
rejected the report of. the Krishuan Committee. On the other hand, it was made
clear that such a report can be considered after submitting of the report of
the Central Government in compliance with the directions made by this Court, as
noted herein earlier. In compliance with the directions made by this Court in
its order, a report was submitted and a further order in continuance of the
order dated 25th October 1994, was also passed by this Court in the
aforesaid appeals reported in Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh and Ors. v. State of
A.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/1122/1997. From this
order, it appears that the Central Government had constituted an
inter-Ministerial committee headed by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Food
Processing Industry and three other Members. The committee in its report made
the following conclusions and suggestions: (i) With regard to the
pollution of air and water the suggestions, and recommendations made by the
Krishnan Committee as well as the expert opinion contained in it were good and
acceptable. The Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests
have already accepted the same and the steps to implement have already been
taken. The Environment Audit Report along with the Environmental Management
Plan prepared by the Company were acceptable. However, regular monitoring:
of pollution of air and water need to foe continued by the. Company itself as
well as periodic checking by the Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board. (Emphasis
supplied) (ii) The Krishnan
Committee's assumption and apprehensions on depletion of cattle due to
establishment of M/s Al-Kabeer's slaughter Page 1810 house are not based on
correct scientific analysis and adequate reasoning, and therefore, are not
acceptable. Prom the facts and analysis it is obnions that amongst bovine animals,
the project of M/s. Al-Kabeer is to utilize only the unproductive buffaloes and
not cow and its progeny. In fact, adequate number of unproductive buffaloes
were available for use in the slaughter house and other slaughter houses in
Andhra Pradesh. (iii) The Krishnan
Committee's suggestion of State Government taking over M/s Al-Kabeer slaughter
house for supply of meat for domestic requirement had gone contrary to the
objective of giving permission for setting up of abattoir by M/s. Al-Kabeer, as
well as Government \ of India's programme for increase of export of meat and
meat products. There is, however. need for modernizing the existing
abattoirs in the State for which the State Government may take appropriate
steps separately. (iv) The suggestion of
Krishnan Committee of the Company undertaking effective programmes to raise
feed cattle for meeting 50% requirement, of the abhattoir was not practicable
and therefore, not acceptable. However, as per the terms of the licence, the
Company should prepare a plan in consultation with the State Government and
take up its implementation in conjunction with the State Government for
promoting better animal husbandry practices. 24. Number of petitions
were filed by the appellants in the appeals challenging the report and finally
this Court by its order dated There is good amount of substance in the submissions of
the learned Counsel for the appellants. The statistics which constitute the
basis of this Report submitted by the Government of India are not really
relevant to the issue before us. As lightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for
the appellants, Al-Kabeer started functioning only in April 1993 and the
effects and impact of its functioning will be known only if one studies the
figures of availability and /or depletion of buffalo population over a period
of one or two years after Al- Kabeer has started, functioning. Merely showing
that there has been a marginal increase in buffalo population between 1987 and
1993 is neither here nor there. Even if It is assumed that the 1993 figures
refer to the figures up to September-October 1993, that will take only six
months of working of Al- Kabeer. The proper impact of working of Al-Kabeer on
the depletion of cattle,, if any, would be known only if one lakes into
consideration the census figures of cattle in Telangana region or in the areas contiguous
to Medak District (where the said unit is Page 1811 located), as the case may
be, after at least two years of working of Al-Kabeer. In short, the position
obtaining after April 1995 would alone give a correct picture. We-cannot also
reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the
Government of India's Report is influenced to a considerable extent by the.
Report of Shri Yogi Reddy. the then Director of Animal Husbandry, Government of
Andhra Pradesh. whose Report has been termed as "unauthorized" by the
Special Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and thus disowned by the
Government, Even according to the Government of India's Report, the requirement
of Al-Kabeer is 1.5 to 2.0 lakh buffaloes every year, which is not an
insubstantial figure. We must also take into consideration what the appellants'
counsel call the inherent contradiction between the 'standard and Quality of
beef required for export and the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition
of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977 and the effect of the
decisions of this Court, which leave only old and infirm buffaloes for
slaughter. We therefore, think it appropriate that the Government of India
should be called upon to send a fresh report after studying the impact and
effect of the working of Al-Kabeer upon the buffalo population of the Telangana
region of Andhra Pradesh and also of the areas adjacent to Al- Kabeer. two
years after the commencement of the operations by Al-Kabeer. It is not possible
for us to pass any final orders on the basis of the Report now submitted, which
as stated above, is based upon the statisties/census figures of cattle
population including buffalo population for the period 1937 to 1993.
Accordingly, we call upon the Central Government to submit a fresh report in
the light of the observations made herein within six months. 25. In the aforesaid
order, an interim order was passed saying that with effect from 1st
April 1997 the company shall function at half of the installed capacity and not
its full installed capacity and the appeals were directed to be listed after 6
months. 26. Pursuant to the order
of this Court in the year 1997, a report was filed by the Central Government.
In the direction made by this Court in 1997, this Court observed that the data
starting from two years after the functioning of the Al-Kabeer abattoir
(company ) would give the correct picture of its effect on live stock
population in the surrounding areas and directed the Central Government to file
the same. In the report filed by the Central Government, date has been analysed
through a comparison between a four year period immediately preceding the
operation of the abattoir and four year period immediately after the
functioning of the abattoir i.e. data "between 1989-90 to 1992-93 was
compared with data between 1993-94 to 1996-97. The data was compared by
averaging the population of four year blocks before and after working of the
abattoir. Page 1812 27. After making the
comparison, the following has been reported: (1) It is young stock and
females over 3 years that had contributed to the sustenance of buffalo
population. The increase in female and young stock clearly indicates that the
functioning of the Al-Kabeer Abattoir has not resulted in depletion of buffalo
population in Telangana region. There exists adequate potential of buffalo
population in these areas to sustain the demand from different sources for the
buffaloes including that of Al-Kabeer abattoir. (2) Increases in buffalo
population, especially in the latest year i.e. 1996-97, do not substantiate any
consistent decline in buffalo population as a result of functioning of the
Al-Kabeer abattoir (company). (3) Though there is a
decrease in cattle population, that may not be related, to the functioning of
the Al-Kabeer, as beef from cattle is banned from export. 28. Subsequently, in the
year 1999 census data on cattle population of Andhra Pradesh namely 16th
live stock census was submitted before this Court. As per the live stock census
conducted, the total live stock population in the Andhra Pradesh State was
calculated at 357.87 lakhs in 1999 with an increase of 8.7% over that of 1993
census. This increase was stated to be mainly due to the significant increase
in bovine population to the extent of 22%. 29. On behalf of the
appellants, the first question that was raised and not decided by this Court in
its earlier orders but kept to be decided at the final stage of the appeals,
was whether Al-Kabeer Unit.'(company) has been established in violation of
location requirement, as mentioned in the LOI of the Central Government for
issuance of industrial licence to it. According to the appellants, since the
location of Al-Kabeer is in violation of location requirement, as mentioned in
the LOI of the Central Government and also the prohibition zone imposed by the
State Government, and as Al-Kabeer (Company) is located within 13 K.M. from the
urban limit of Hyderabad city, it must be held that Al-Kabeer (Company) must
close down its abattoir. It was also urged that the Andhra Pradesh Government,
having issued a General Order banning location of industries in Medak District,
where the unit of the Company was located, had wrongly issued permission to the
company to run its abattoir and in that view of the matter the company must be
directed to shut down its abattoir and the licence issued to it must be
cancelled. 30. This submission was
hotly contested by the learned Counsel appearing for Al-Kabeer (Company). We
have carefully examined the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties
and also perused the records and the findings of the High Court regarding
location requirement, as indicated in the LOT of the Central Government and the
General Order of the State Government. In our view, this submission of the
appellants, at this stage, cannot be accepted. At the outset, we may say that
this question was not seriously argued by the learned Counsel of the appellants
before us, although in the written submissions filed by them, this question was
tentatively raised. Since a submission was made on this account, we feel it
Page 1813 appropriate to deal with this question. Before we deal with this
question in detail, we may note that for the first time in this Court the
appellants have alleged the fact that the Al-Kabeer unit (company) is located
within 13 km. from the standard urban limits of the city of Hyderabad which
falls within the prohibited zone. 31. Even assuming,
distance prohibition would be applicable to the case of Al-Kabeer (company), we
are still of the view that this distance prohibition may not stand in the way
of Al-Kabeer from getting an industrial licence for the purpose of setting up
the abattoir at the site in question. It is an admitted fact that in the
application for grant of licence, Al-Kabeer (the Company), had stated the exact
location where they were going to set up the abattoir, that is to say in
Rudraram Village in the District of Medak of the State of Andhra Pradesh. When
this application was processed by the Central Government, a thorough enquiry
must have been made by it and only thereafter industrial licence was issued to,
the Company. It is true that before issuance of licence, LOT was issued by the
Central Government only wherein, this location requirement was stated in a
printed form. It is an admitted position that the Central Government did not
make any query from the company about the distance between Rudraram Village,
where the site is located, and the urban limits of the city of Hyderabad. 32. On a bare perusal of Section
11 of the IDR Act, it is evident that no person or authority shall, after the
commencement, of the Act, establish any industrial undertaking except in
accordance with the licence issued in that behalf by the Central Government,
That is to say, an embargo has been imposed on any person or authority to
establish any new industrial undertaking before obtaining a licence from the
Central Government. Subsection 2 of Section 11 however says that a licence or a
permission under Sub-section 1 to establish a new industrial undertaking may
contain such conditions including condition as to the location of the
undertaking as the Central Government may deem fit to impose in accordance with
the Rules. This Sub-section 2 of Section 11 empowers the Central Government to
impose conditions on the person or the authority as to the location of the
undertaking. In our view, Sub-section 2 of Section 11 of the Act. by which
conditions can he imposed as to the location of the undertaking by the Central
Government is only directory and it would be open to the Central Government, to
issue licence without, giving any conditions to the company as to the location
of the undertaking. It is significant to note that the legislature in
Sub-section 2 of Section 11 has used the word 'may'. 33. By issuing the
Industrial licence to the Company, even after knowing the proposed location of
the unit, it must be said that the Central Government waived the location
requirements, as mentioned in its LOI with regard to this unit. 34. Economic liberalization
was made by the Central Govt. on 25th of July, 1991 and following
the said policy, the Government of Andhra Pradesh also issued a Notification on
3rd February 1992 winch was issued as a follow up action of the
Notification of the Central Government dated 25th July 1991 under
which permission/license was required for industries Page 1814 located within
25 km from the periphery of standard urban area. The Notification dated 3rd
February 1992 of the State Government specified areas which would fall within
or outside 25 km. from the periphery of the standard urban area in order to
enable the entrepreneurs to take appropriate action. According to the
appellants, the company is located within Rudraram village which is a
prohibited zone from the periphery of the city of Hyderabad and therefore the
company, in terms of the Industrial policy of the State Government, was not.
entitled to get an industrial licence to run the slaughter house. Clause (2) of
Paragraph 3 of the Notification specified the list of villages falling within
the prohibited zone for which, location approval from. The Central Government
would be necessary except for non-polluting industries such as electronics,
computer software and printing industries. In the present case, the activity of
the company, does not fall in the category of non-polluting industries.
However, this notification contains two lists. One list is A and the other is
B. List A specified all the villages within the standard urban area of
Hyderabad. Patancheru which falls within Medak District and is within the
compulation of 25 km. from the periphery of the standard urban area of
Hyderabad falls under list B. Therefore, in terms of the distance there was
requirement of obtaining an industrial licence by - virtue of the Notification
dated 3rd February 1992 of the State Government. In view of the
admitted fact that industrial licence was granted by the Central Govt. on
11.11.1992 and permission to run the slaughter house was also granted by the
State Government on the basis of the Industrial policy of the State Govt. of 3rd
February, 1992, we are unable to hold that, distance prohibition could be
considered to be a ground either for cancellation of the industrial licence or
for closing down the unit. 35. Apart from that, we
may keep it in mind that in pursuance of the LOI granted by the Central
Government and the various permissions granted by the State Government and
other authorities, the company commenced construction, of its factory in 1989.
It should also keep in mind that, before commencing its construction the
following permissions/No Objection Certificates were taken by the Company: (a) No Objection
Certificate for site clearance from APPCB. (b) No Objection
Certificate from the Director of Animal Husbandly., A.P. (c) Letter of Intent from
Ministry of Indus try, Govt. of India. (d)Two NOCs. from the
Gram Panchayat to locate the factory as well as commence construction. (e) Permission from
Medical and Health Department, A. P. (f) Permission from the
Director of Town and Country Planning. (g) Permission from
Director of Industries, A.P. (h) NOCs. from National
Airport Authority, Hyderabad and Madras, (i) NOC from AIR
Headquarters, New Delhi. 36. It also appears from
the record that the Industrial licence was granted by the Central Government on
the strong recommendation of the State Government The unit commenced production
in April 1993 after dismissal Page 1815 of a batch of Writ Petitions
challenging the permissions granted by various authorities to commence
production including that of the APPCB. The unit achieved its full production
in December 1993 and since then it is earning valuable and substantial foreign
exchange for our country. Above all, the question on location, as noted herein
earlier, was neither raised seriously before the High Court nor before us. It
must also be noted that, in this regard various State authorities had granted
permissions for the abattoir to be constructed and function at the selected
site and production has been continuing for the last 10 to 15 years. That
apart, the question on location requirement is always a question of fact which
cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage before us. However, we keep it
open to the Central Government and the State Government to consider the distance
prohibition as indicated in the LOI and the Notification and General Order of
the State Government for the purpose of shifting the site to some other
alternative place which would satisfy the location conditions. Subject to the
above, this question is answered in favour of the Al-Kaheer (company). 37. The, next question
that was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant before us which needs
to be decided is whether Al-Kabeer (company) operates in violation of
Environmental Acts and Rules. According to the appellants, no study has been
made of the prevailing environment and the impact of Al-Kabeer on it.
Therefore, it was contended that the precautionary principle has been ignored
by the authority before granting permission to Al-Kabeer to run the slaughter
house. 38. The learned Counsel
appealing on behalf of Satyavani in C.A. No. 3967 of 1994 contended that APPCB
by its consent order dated 21st December 1993 allowed limit for
B.O.D, of 100 mg/Lit, whereas the maximum permissible limit specified in the Environment
Protection Rules, 1986 Was 30 mg./Lit (Rule 3, Schedule 1, Entry 50B).
According to the learned Counsel appearing for Satyavani the limit for
suspended solids allowed by APPCB of 100 mg/Lit was in excess of limit of 50
mg/Lit. allowed in Rule 3, Schedule 1, Entry 50B of the Environment. Protection
Rules, 1986. Therefore, it. was contended that, the consent of APPCB was in
violation of the Act and Rules, and accordingly it must be quashed. It was also
contended on behalf of Satyavani that, since the samples collected on 6th
August 1994 from Al-Kabeer show that its B.O.D. in fact reached 150 mg/Lit.
which was much beyond the permitted limit of 30 mg, /Lit. and its suspended
solid discharge, was recorded at 140 mg/Lit. which was much beyond the permitted
50 mg./Lit., the question of giving consent to Al-Kabeer by the authorities
could not arise at all as it had clearly violated the maximum permissible limit
specified in the Environment Protection Rules, 1986. Accordingly, permission
granted should be withdrawn. These submissions were strongly disputed, by the
learned Counsel for Al-Kabeer (company). 39. From a careful
consideration of the rival submissions of the parties on the question of
environmental pollution, we find that this question was not seriously argued by
the appellants during the course of hearing that the company had violated the
norms under Environment Protection Rules, 1986. Thus we may not permit the
appellant to raise this question before us. Page 1816 However, as environmental
pollution has now become a public nuisance, we thought it fit to go into this
question and decide the same. 40. We have carefully
examined the rival submissions made before us by the learned Counsel for the
parties on the aforesaid question. From the record it appears that the
recommendations regarding environment made by Krishnan Committee so far as the
abattoir is concerned, were accepted by the Central Government as would be
evident from this Court's order dated 12th March, 1997. It also
appears from the record that Al-Kabeer Company had invested huge amount for
installation of elaborate anti-pollution equipment, and operates the same with
consent obtained from APPCB. It is true that the standards prescribed by APPCB
for Al-Kabeer while issuing its consent for slaughtering operation to begin,
were indeed in violation of the Environment Protection Rules in so far as they
prescribe a lower standard than was mandated by the aforesaid Rules. Under Rule
3 of the Rules, the State Boards are permitted to prescribe higher standards
than those mentioned in the Rules but are not permitted to lower the standard.
Considering the fact that the. permission to operate the abattoir was granted
by the APPCB, the State Government and also by various authorities of the State
10 to 15 years back and considering the fact that Al-Kabeer had installed
elaborate anti-pollution equipment, by investing huge amount, we are of the
view that Al-Kabeer must be directed to comply with the Environment Protection
Rules by lowering down the pollution levels at the abattoir to permissible
limits, rather than to direct closure of the abattoir of the company. It also
appears that the samples which were collected by the Department of Water and
Waste Water Examination, Institute of Preventive Medicine, Narayanguda,
Hyderabad from Al-Kabeer's abattoir indicated violation of the standards
prescribed under Environment Protection Rules. Though Al-Kabeer has installed
elaborate anti-pollution equipment, it would be of no consequence if such
equipment is in reality not bringing down the level of pollution below
permissible limits. However, it cannot be overlooked that Al-Kabeer is
continuing its operation for more than 10 years without any objection from the
APPCB, Therefore, considering all the circumstances, we are of the view that
directly ordering closure of Al-Kabeer Abattoir is not called for; rather
directions may be given to APPCB to rectify its consent order in accordance
with the Environment Protection Rules and also to direct Al-Kabeer to strictly comply
with that, rectified consent order and Environment Protection Rules. In the
event abattoir fails to comply with such directions from the APPCB, it would be
open to the authorities to direct closure of the Al-Kabeer unit. We are taking
this view keeping in mind that the appellants had not seriously argued, during
the course of hearing before this Court, that the company had in fact violated
the standards laid down in the Environment Protection Act and Rules. 41. It may also be noted
that in the interim judgment dated 12.3.1997 reported in MANU/SC/1122/1997,
this Court has noted the conclusions of the Central Government. Committee in
paragraph 2 wherein, it has recorded that the Committee had accepted the
suggestions and recommendations made by the Krishnan Committee with regard to
pollution of air and water. Page 1817 It has also been noted therein that the
Environmental Audit Report and the Environmental Management Firm Report along
with the Environmental Management Plan prepared by the company are acceptable.
As already noted hereinearlier, the company has installed elaborate
anti-pollution equipment, imported as well as indigenous. The company has been operating
only after obtaining consent from APPCB which .is regularly renewed. Insofar as
standards for discharge of effluents from slaughter house and meat processing
are concerned, the same is prescribed under Rule 3 read with entry 50-B of
Schedule I of the. Environment Protection Rules, 1986. In this connection Entry
50-B (b) of Schedule 1 of Environment Protection Rules 1986 is relevant as it
prescribes the B.O.D., suspended solids & oil and grease limits. At this
juncture it is also to be noted that Ministry of Environment, Government of
India, by its letter dated 29th May 1995 fixed the standards for
Al-Kabeer Exports Pvt. Ltd. at 100 B.O.D. and 30 B.O.D. for slaughterhouse and
meat, processing respectively. As Al-Kabeer has been operating on the basis of
the norms specified by the Central Government and considering the fact that-
Al-Kabeer unit has been operating for more than 10 years without, any objection
form APPCB and keeping in mind the economic policy of the Central Government,
we are of the view that Al-Kaber may not be, at this stage, directed to stop
their operation and close the unit. In view of our discussion made
hereinbefore, and as APPCB reserves the right to take action against Al-Kabeer
for violation of the terms and conditions imposed in its permission, it would
be open for APPCB to direct Al-Kabeer to rectify the level of pollution below
prescribed limits and in the event that it is not done they may direct
Al-Kabeer to close down its abattoir. As noted hereinbefore, it is of course true
that the prescribed limit of pollution by APPCB was in violation of the
Environment Protection Rules, therefore in our view," directions must be
given to APPCB to rectify its consent order and directions be given by them to
the abattoir to comply with that rectified consent order in accordance with
Rule 3 of the Environment Protection Rules. 42. In this connection,
two further questions had arisen in relation to compliance with environment
standards maintained by Al-Kabeer, which were raised by the appellant Shri
Tukkoji, in C.A. Nos. 396-1-65 of 1994. 43. The first question is
whether the consent order of the APPCB was vitiated because the reports of the
analysts were not made available to Shri Tukkoji prior to the issuance of NOC.
Learned counsel appearing for Shri Tukkoji contended that the consent order was
in derogation of the light of Shri Tukkoji to information in violation of
Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution. According to Shri Tukkoji, he was not only entitled to
receive the reports of the analysts relating to the effects of the functioning
of the abattoir but also to file objections prior to the issuance of N.O.C.
This contention was accepted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court but
was rejected by the Division Bench. The Division Bench In the impugned judgment
observed as follows- On a prima, facie view of
the various provisions of the Water Act and the corresponding provisions of the
Air Act, in particular the provisions of Sections 16, 17, 20 and 25 of the
Water Act we are not inclined to Page 1818 hold at this stage that a third
parts7 has any right to seek information or material from the State Board at or
before granting of consent by it under Section 25(3) of
the Water Act. It is not as if aggrieved party is left without a remedy. After
consent is granted... any third party who feels aggrieved... can make a
complaint to the Court of a First Class Magistrate... Apart, from that, the
State Board has ample powers to review its order granting consent by modifying
or revoking any existing condition.... (Emphasis
supplied) 44. We do not find any
reason to disagree with this view of the Division Bench of the High Court. In
this connection, we examined Section 25 of the
Water Act in depth and, in our view, Section 25 of the
Water Act does not confer any right on members of the public to demand
information from the APPCB prior to issuance of NOG. Therefore, it cannot be
held, that the NOG was vitiated by reason of non-disclosure of information to
the appellant Tukkoji prior to its issuance. 45. Thus, first question
of Shri Tukkoji as argued by his learned Counsel has no merit and it is hereby
rejected. The second question raised is whether the consent order was vitiated
because the APPCR was improperly constituted. It was contended on behalf of
Shri Tukkoji that APPCB was not validly constituted and that the Chairman and
Member Secretary of APPCB did not possess the qualifications required under the
Water Act, and accordingly the Board, as constituted was not competent to issue
consent order. In order to answer this question it would be beneficial if we
reproduce the relevant findings of the Division Bench which run as under : We are not unaware of the contention of counsel for the
petitioners that the Pollution Control Board did not. really consist of
scientific experts, and that in that sense, issue of No Objection Certificate
by that body may not be considered as a result of informed expert opinion. That
brush can as well paint the opinion of Shri H.K. Babu, Secretary, Food and
Agriculture, as also that of Shri R.V. Krishnan, Secretary, Energy, Forest,
Environment, Science and Technology in the same hues. We are informed that
some, at least, of the members of the Pollution Control Board was renowned
scientists... 46. It is true that
Section 4(2)(a.) of the Water Act requires the. Chairman of the
APPCB to be a person having special knowledge or practical experience in
respect of matters relating to environmental protection or a person having
knowledge and experience in administering institutions dealing with matters
aforesaid, to be nominated by the State Government'. Section 4(2)(f) of the Act requires the Member Secretary to possess
"qualifications, knowledge and experience of scientific, engineering or
management aspects of pollution control," 47. From the record, it
appears that at the relevant time the Chairman and the Member Secretary of the
APPCB did not possess these statutorily required qualifications. The
observation of the High Court in the judgment that some of the members of the APPCB
were scientific experts, does notPage 1819 address this specific breach of the
statutory requirement. In this connection, we, however, need to look into the
provisions under Section 11 of the
Water Act, which provides in terms that "No act or proceeding of a Board
or any committee thereof shall be called in question on the ground merely of
the existence of any vacancy in or any defect in the constitution of, the Board
or such committee, as the case may be." Therefore, applying Section 11 of the
Act which clearly provides that 110 act or proceeding of APPCB or any committee
thereof shall be called in question, it can safely be concluded that even if
there was some defect in the composition of the APPCB, that
would not invalidate the consent order issued by it. 48. Let us now come back
to the most important question that needs to be decided in these appeals, which
is about the issue of cattle depletion clue to functioning of the Al-Kabeer
abattoir. On this question, the appellant in C.A. No. 3966/1994 advanced the
following submissions : (a) Since the Al-Kabeer
project involves slaughtering of prohibited cattle, which can be statistically
shown to be inevitable, and is also evidenced on video the Govt. has a
constitutional duty under the second part of Article 48 of the
Constitution to prevent such slaughter as well as a duty to enforce the A.P.
Preservation of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977. (b) The slaughter rate of
Al-Kabeer exceeds the renewal rate as would be evident from the reports
submitted by the authorities before the High Court as well as before this
Court. 49. The appellant
Satyavani in C.A. 3967/1994 made the following submissions: a. The report of the
Central Govt. submitted on 12.9.1997 was misleading, because it had averaged,
and then compared the figures for buffalo population in the four years before
and after Al-Kabeer was set up, which disguises the fact that a decline in
buffalo population had occurred subsequent to this setup. Further, the same
persons responsible for preparing the earlier Govt. report of 1994- which was
held to be misleading by this Court in its order dated 12,3.1997- were again
involved in preparation of this report. b. The abattoir stopped
taking animals from its hinterland subsequent to the Court's order of
12.3.1997, and instead began importing animals from other States. Thus, the
figures of 2003 Livestock Census are not relevant to the issue at hand, and the
effect of the abattoir on buffalo depletion can only be judged on the basis of
statistics of approximately two years after its commencement- as observed by
this Court in its order dated 25.10.1994. Further, the 2003 Census itself shows
a decrease in buffalo population in adjoining States of Karnataka and
Maharashtra, from 1999 to 2003- indicating the effect the abattoir has had, through
its importation of buff aloes from these States. Moreover, the figures in the
2003 Livestock Census show abnormal and unrealistic growth of cattle
population' in districts of AP, which can not be accepted. Page 1820 c. The subsequent report
of the Central Govt. dated 23.12.2003 itself vindicates the claim that cattle
depletion has occurred due to Al-Kabeer's operations. d. This depletion is not
in relation to old and useless cattle, as Al-Kabeer necessarily must slaughter
useful animals, for export, as pointed out by the Krishnan Committee Report.
There are also no sufficient number of useless animals to meet its requirement
of 1.5 to 2 lakh buffaloes per year, as is evident, from the figures of
successive census carried out by the Andhra Pradesh Directorate of Economics
and Statistics. Further, the monitoring of Al-Kabeer, for compliance with the
Andhra Pradesh Animal Preservation Act, is not. effective, as reported by Dr.
Jitendra Reddy, Special Officer, Govt. of A.P. Such unrestricted slaughtering of
useful animals will worsen the already existing dung shortage in. Andhra
Pradesh. 50. The appellant Akhil
Bharat Goseva Sangh in C.A. No. 3968/1994 made the following submissions: a) The Central Govt..
report, on buffalo population, as well as the 16th Quinquennial
census figures (1999) of the Bureau of Economics .and Statistics contains gross
inconsistencies. b) The census was not
carried out comprehensively, nor does it provide figures as to slaughter of
buffaloes above 10 years, which are still useful. c) The 17th
Quinquennial census (2003) is only provisional in. nature, and does not
categorize cattle based on age and use hence it cannot be relied on by the
Central Government. d) The census figures of
1999 and 2003 indicate growth rates which are inconsistent with the extent of
cattle slaughter. e) Al-Kabeer cannot claim
that it has a fundamental freedom to conduct a trade or business which violates
the Fundamental Duty in Article 51A(g) of the Constitution to have compassion for living
creatures, and is also destructive of the environment- this follows from the
rule of harmonious construction. f) In any case, the
freedom in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution cannot be permitted to be
exercised if it is not in the interests of the general public. The slaughter of
livestock in response to export demand creates acute scarcity of animals which
will increase prices of milk, ghee, meat and other products. Further. such
export-oriented slaughter-houses induce owners of animals to sell them despite
their utility as milch or draught cattle. Depletion of cattle wealth also leads
to loss of benefits from dung output of cattle, which is its most useful
contribution. The Al- Kabeer project also lends to a net loss of employment, as
more than one lakh. persons are employed in activities in relation to cattle,
besides depriving the nation of the benefits of live cattle. These effects
constitute violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution. (g) The Al-Kabeer project
is operating in violation of various State animal preservation laws, as it has
stated that it imports 70 percent of its buffalo requirement from other States,
as well as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Page 1821 h) Al-Kabeer cannot rely
on the 1958 Quareshi's judgment, as that case concerned the rights of
individual butchers, not businesses setup to earn profits from export.
Moreover, the crux- of that judgment, striking down the total ban on slaughter
of old cattle, was scarcity of fodder resources- which no longer exists.
Finally, the concept of 'usefulness' of cattle was placed before the Court in
1958 in only a narrow sense (milk, breeding and draught services) and the
utility of dung was not considered. 51. All these submissions
of the appellants, as noted hereinbefore, were contested by Al-Kabeer in
C.A.No.3967 of 1994 and made the following reply : a. The appellants had
relied on a Central Govt report dated 23.12.2003, which is based, on 1999
census figures, to prove cattle depletion. But in fact, this report indicates
increase in buffalo population in Andhra Pradesh. despite operation of the Al-
Kabeer project. b. There are sufficient
number of useless buffaloes to meet Al- Kabeer's capacity, if figures over a
year, and nut simply a given day, are taken into account. In one year, 9. 4
lakh useless buffaloes are available in Andhra Pradesh, much more than the
requirement of Al-Kabeer. c. The appellants had
mistakenly inferred that useful buffaloes are being slaughtered by Al-Kabeer
but the report shows that, since milk production has increased along with meat
export, therefore young and productive animals are not. being slaughtered. 52. Further Al-Kabeer in
C.A. No. 3968/1994 made the following reply : a. The compliance by
Al-Kabeer with the Andhra Pradesh Animal Preservation Act is monitored by the
officials deputed by the Director, Animal Husbandry. b. The report of the
Expert Committee of the Central Govt. filed on 15.9.1997, pursuant to the order
of this Court dated 12.3.1997, concluded that there would be no depletion
effect on livestock in Andhra Pradesh, as a result of continuance of Al-Kabeer
in full capacity. The method used in the report of relying on cattle population
figures in block periods of four years before and after commencement of operations
of Al-Kabeer was justified. The 16th and 17th
Quinquennial Census figures also indicate that there has been an increase in
the buffalo population in Telangana region, not a. decline. Although reports
have been challenged by the appellant, but it has now become a settled - law
that the findings made in such reports are not open to challenge unless it is
shown that such findings are perverse, arbitrary and any prudent person cannot
reach to such findings. 53. The respondent APEDA
(Agricultural and Processed Food Exports Development Authority) in C.A. No.
3968/1994 supported the case of abattoir and in support thereof made the
following submissions : a. The appellants had not
even made the case that Al-Kabeer is violating any of the conditions imposed on
it for slaughter of buffalo. b. The claim of the
appellants that cattle population is declining on account of Al- Kabeer's
operation is based on a wrong approach, because Page 1822 the issue is
not whether the total population is decreasing or not, but. whether the
population of healthy livestock is decreasing. The census figures
confirm that there has been no such depletion due to Al-Kabeer's operation. 54. As noted herein
earlier, we have not only carefully examined the Krishnan Committee report but
also the other reports submitted toy the Central Government in pursuance of the
directions made by this Court in its earlier orders in 1994 and 1997. On cattle
depletion the Krishnan 'Committee noted that the operation of Al-Kabeer would
adversely affect the cattle population in and around the region unless 50% of
the demand of the abattoir was. met through breeding of cattle by Al-Kabeer
itself. Before we go into this question we may note that the A.P. Act was
enacted in the year 1977 (Act 11 of 1977), By this Act, the Legislature has
regulated the slaughter of all bovine animals including buffaloes. Under
section 6(1) no animal is allowed to be slaughtered unless a certificate in
writing from the competent authority is obtained certifying that the animal is
fit for slaughter. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act prohibits
slaughtering of animals unless the competent authority grants a certificate in
respect of an animal that it is not likely to become economical for the purpose
of breeding, milching or draught. After carefully reading the conditions for
obtaining a permission from the competent authority to slaughter an animal, we
find, that slaughtering an animal requires the following; (a) Only old and useless
buffaloes can be slaughtered. (b) Buffaloes fit for
milching, breeding or draught cannot be slaughtered. (c) Cow and its progeny
including calves of cows and calves of buffaloes cannot be slaughtered. 55. In order to see
whether those conditions are fulfilled by Al-Kabeer. the Director, Animal
Husbandry of State of Andhra Pradesh has deputed necessary officials of the
rank of Veterinary Asstt. Surgeons to the plant of the company to monitor and
undertake anti-mortem and post-mortem examinations and to implement the
provisions of the Act. 56. As noted
hereinearlier, in the interim direction made by this Court in these appeals on
12th March 1997 MANU/SC/1122/1997,
this Court directed the Central Govt, to give a report after studying the
impact and effect of the working of Al-Kabeer upon the buffalo population of
the Telangana Region of Andhra Pradesh and also of the areas adjacent to
Al-Kabeer, two years after the commencement of the operations by Al-Kabeer, The
Central Government in pursuance of the said direction made on 12th
March 1997 filed a fresh report on 15th September 1997. From a
reading of the said report, it appears to us that the expert committee of the
Central Govt. had examined all issues, as directed by this Court in its
judgment dated 12th March 1997. This considered opinion in the said
report is as under: on the examination of all
observations mentioned in the judgment dated 12.3.1997 the committee is of
the opinion that there Page 1823 would not be any depletion effect on live
stock population particularly buffalos, sheep and goat in Medak and contiguous
districts, Telanaana region or in the State of Andhra Pradesh as a result of
continuance of Al-Kabeer at the full capacity utilization. (Emphasis
supplied). 57. In support of this
report the State Govt. also filed an affidavit on 15th November 1997
(See page 17 of the counter affidavit of Al-Kabeer Exports to LA. No.
10-14/1997) wherein the State. Government noted that the report of the Central
Govt, was based on the relevant data and the conclusions reached by the expert
committee in its report were not improper. In paragraph 20 of the said
affidavit, it has teen stated that the State Govt. had deputed five veterinary
Asstt. Surgeons to supervise the slaughtering work at the site of Al-Kabeer and
only thereafter the State Govt. issued anti-mortem and post-mortem
certificates. From the record, it is also evident that the Central Govt. had
filed yet another report prepared by an Expert committee along with an
affidavit dated 6th July 1998 . This affidavit and report were filed
pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 13th April 1998
directing the Central Govt. and the state of Andhra Pradesh to file affidavits
not only responding to the appellant's application for modification but also
with regard to the cattle, population, of Andhra Pradesh in general and
Telangana zone in particular, The report states as follows: The increase is much higher in Telangana region as
compared to Andhra & Rayalaseema during the four year period of Al-Kabeer
working and this has clearly indicated that Al-Kabeer working has no adverse
impact on the buffalo population in Telangana region on in Medal area where the
abattoir is located. The detailed report at
yet another place states: A comparison of the estimated population of buffaloes in
milk during the four year period before-working of Al-Kabeer abattoir and after
working of Al-Kabeer abattoir indicates that similar to milch buffaloes,
population of buffaloes in milk also increased during the four year period
after working of Al-Kabeer abattoir. The increase is 23.40 percent in Medak and
contiguous districts, 24,33 percent in Telangana and 17.17 percent in Andhra
& Rayalaseema. An overall increase of 19.61 percent in the Andhra Pradesh
State is observed. This clearly indicates that productive buffaloes are not
slaughtered in Al-Kabeer abattoir as stated by the appellant and there would
not be depletion of buffalo population as a result of Al-Kabeer functioning. In conclusion the report
states: From the above it could be inferred that Al-Kabeer working
at full capacity does not result in buffalo population either in any area of
Andhra Pradesh or in the country.... (Emphasis
supplied) 58. On behalf of the
appellant, it was argued that in the Central Govt. report figures/statistics
were misleading inasmuch as it had taken an average of four years before the
commencement, of operations of A1-Kabeer and again of four year figures after
the commencement of operations by Al-Kabeer. According to the appellants, the
correct way was to see the figures immediately preceding the start of
operations by AI-Kabeer and thereafter to see the figures two years after
commencement of operation of Al-Kabeer. Page 1824 In our view, this submission
is fallacious and cannot be accepted. The committee of the Central Govt. has
correctly taken the figures of a block period of four years before commencement
of operations and again figures of a block period of four years alter
commencement of operations by Al-Kabeer. This is in view of the fact that
statistics/figures of one particular year cannot represent or give a proper
picture as the number of animals/buffaloes/cattle can very well vary due to
natural calamities large scale migration in view of urbanization etc. We do not
find any thing to say that the committee of the Central Govt. had gone wrong by
proceeding on that basis and it was justified to take a block period of four
years which would certainly indicate the trend or show whether there was any
steep or persistent decline after the commencement of operations of Al-Kabeer.
We must not forget that this Court has also seen that there is no sharp decline
or consistent reduction in the number of useful buffaloes year after year after
the commencement of operations of Al-Kabeer. The figures/statistics as given by
the Central Govt. in its report dated 15.9.1997 as well as the 16th
Quinquennial and 17 th Quinquennial Census would clearly indicate
that there is an increase in the number of buffaloes and there is no reduction
or decline much less a steep decline in the number of buffaloes in the
Telangana region, as argued by the appellant. The district-wise comparison for
Telangana between the census of 1999 and 2003 as would be evident, from the
report is as follows : ------------------------------------------------------District 16th Census 1999 17th Census 2003------------------------------------------------------Mahaboobnagar 360749 356269 (-)Rangareddy 211044 272342 (+)Hyderabad 8870 31400 (+)Medak 313988 367350 (+)Nizamabad 267846 333989 (+)Adilabad 208823 301014 (+)Karimanager 448896 441361 (-)Warangal 438324 486779 (+)Khhamniam 498537 5658 10 (+)Nalgonda 622827 592271 (-)------------------------------------------------------ PERCENTAGE VARIATION --------------------Year A.P. State Telaneana Region-------------------------------------------------------1999 census (over + 5.3% +4.6%1993 census2003 census (over + 10. 35% + 10.91%1999 census-------------------------------------------------------
59. The appellant sought to
challenge the veracity and correctness of the figures given in the report of
the Central Govt. as well as in the Quinquennial Page 1825 census. In our view,
this submission is devoid of merit. It is now well-settled by various decisions
of this Court that the findings of expert bodies in technical and scientific matters
would not ordinarily be interfered with by courts in the exercise of their
power under Article 226 of the
Constitution or by this Court under Article 136 or 32 of the
Constitution. For this proposition, reliance can be placed on the decision of
this Court in the case Systopic Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dr. Prein
Gupta and Ors. 1994 Suppl.(1) SCC 160. Paragraphs 19 and 20 of this
decision clearly give the answer on the question whether the findings of expert
body in technical and scientific matters can be interfered with by the Court either
under Article 226 or by
this Court under Article 32 or 136 of the
Constitution. Paragraph 19 is re-produced below: Having considered the submissions
made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional
Solicitor General in this regard, we must express our inability to make an
assessment, about the relative merits of the various studies and reports which
have been placed before us. Such an evaluation is required to be done by the
Central Government while exercising its powers under Section 26A of the Act on
the basis of expert advice and the Act makes provision for obtaining such
advice through the Hoard and the DCC. (Emphasis supplied) Para 20 is as follows: The learned Counsel for the
petitioners have urged that these studies and reports had been submitted on
behalf of the petitioners and other manufacturers before the Sub-Committee of
the DCC as well as the Experts Committee but there has been no proper
consideration of the same by the experts as well as the DCC and the Board. In
this context, it has been submitted that no medical expert in the field of
clinical medicine in the treatment of asthma was associated in the committees
and such-experts alone could make a proper evaluation of the said studies. We
find no substance in this contention. We have pursued the minutes of the
meetings of the Board, the Subcommittee of the DCC as well as the Experts
Committee. The minutes show that, the material that was submitted on behalf
of the manufacturers of the drugs in question was examined by the members and
it is not possible to hold that there has been no proper consideration of the
said material by the Experts Committee or the Subcommittee of the DCC. The
complaint that experts in clinical medicine were not associated with the
Committee does not appear to be justified. The minutes of the meetings of the
experts to consider the views of the affected manufacturers, who represented
against the proposed withdrawal of certain formulations moving in the market,
which were held on September 8, 1987, October 16/17, 1987 and January 15/ 16,
1989 show that among the members were included Dr. O.D. Gulati, Dean, CAM
Medical College, Karansad and Dr. J.P. Wali, Page 1826 Assistant Professor of
Medicine, AIIMS. New Delhi, Dr. M. Durairaj Consultant, Cardiologist, Director
of Cardiology, Poona Hospital and Kesearch Centre, Pune was also member of the
Sub-Committee and had attended the meeting held on January 15/16, 1988. It
cannot, therefore, be said that, the medical experts in clinical medicine were
not associated in the Experts Committee for evaluation of the material that was
furnished by the manufacturers. (Emphasis supplied) 60. Similar is the view expressed
by this Court in K. Vasudevan Nair and Ors. v. U.O.I. and Ors. 1991
Supp. (2) SCC 134. We have in detail noticed the report of the Krishnan
Committee and its recommendations in the earlier part of this judgment. In our
view. Krishnan Committee has also not recommended closure of the unit because
of cattle depletion but. on the other hand suggested some measures that may be
taken to minimize cattle depletion. 61. For the reasons aforesaid and
in view of the discussions made hereinabove and after considering the reports
submitted by the committee of the Central Govt and the 16th and 17th
Quinquennial census and report of the Krishnan Committee , we do not find any
reason to show our concern that the functioning of Al-Kabeer abattoir would
result in depletion of buffalo population in the Hinterland of the abattoir. 62. Before concluding this issue,
let us deal with Submission No. (h) made by Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh in C.A.
No. 3968 of 1994. On behalf of Akhil Bharat. Goseva Sangh in Submission No.(h)
it was urged that the decision in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and Ors. v. The State of
Bihar 1959 SCR 629, would not help Al-Kabeer in any way as the position at
present is completely different. In that decision, total ban on slaughter of
old cattle was struck down on the ground that there was scarcity of fodder resources,
which however, according to the Akhil- Bharat Goseva Sangh, does not exist any
longer. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab
Jamat and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/1352/2005,
it has also been held that in view of the position that exists now i.e.
adequate availability of cattle feed resources, the question of striking down
total ban on slaughter of old cattle For scarcity of fodder resources would not
arise at all. In our view, this position cannot be disputed. However, in the.
present case, we are concerned with the A.P. Act, 1977 which does not impose a
total ban on slaughter of a particular type bovine animal, whereas in Mirzapur's
case (Supra) this Court dealt with the provisions of Bombay Animal
Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 which imposes a total ban on
slaughter of cow and its progeny. So far as the A.P. Act, 1977 is concerned,
there is no total ban on slaughter of buffaloes. Therefore, in our view, this
submission of the Page 1827 Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh cannot at all be
accepted, as we are not concerned with the case of striking clown a particular
provision which imposes fan absolute prohibition of slaughter of particular
types of bovine animals. In Mirzapur case, it was, however, not held that
permitting slaughter of bovine cattle by itself is unconstitutional. This being
the position, we are not in agreement with the learned Counsel for the
appellant that Submission No. (h) can come to their assistance for the purpose
of banning of slaughter of buffaloes by Al-Kabeer. 63. The last question which was
agitated by Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh (C.A. No. 3968/ 1994 ) but not agitated
by the other appellants in the other appeals was whether the policy of the
Central Govt. to promote export of meat violates constitutional provisions.
According to the appellant, the policy of the Govt. to encourage slaughter for
export is subject to judicial review as policies which violate constitutional
provisions are review able. This policy violates Article 39(b) and
(c) of the Constitution as it serves to concentrate profits from cattle wealth
in a few hands. It was further submitted by Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh that not
only this policy violates Article 47 of the
Constitution as it. leads to malnutrition but also
Article 18
which contains a positive command to the State to preserve and improve breeds
and prohibit slaughter of milch and draught cattle regardless of their
usefulness . 64. The learned Counsel has also contended that this policy also violates Article 21 by depriving the society of the useful benefits of animals. It was further submitted that the A. P. Act, 1977 docs not mention any specific age limit under whic |