Supreme Court : Akhil Bharat Gosewa Sang case Case 1 on Environment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 3964-3967 and 3968/1994 and 4711-4713 of 1998 and Cont. Pet. No. ... in Civil Appeal No. 3967 of 1994
Decided On: 29.03.2006
Appellants: Akhil Bharat Gosewa Sangh Vs. Respondent: State of A.P. and Ors.
AND
Appellants: Umesh and Ors. Vs. Respondent: State of Karnataka and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges:

Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J. and Tarun Chatterjee, J.
Counsels:
For Appearing Parties: N.N. Goswamy and Manmohan, Sr. Advs., B.S. Banthia, R.K. Joshi, Jasraj Shrimal, Sushil Kumar Jain, Pratibha Jain, Sheela Goel (NP), H.M. Singh (NP), Dhruv Mehta, Mohit Chaudhry, Shalini Gupta, S.K. Mehta, Manoj Saxena, S.K Mettra, Mohanprasad Meharia, Hemant Sharma, S.N. Terdol, Divya Roy, Manish Jha, Bina Gupta, Sunil Kumar Jain, Manish Kumar, S. Borthakur, Pinky Anand, D.N. Govurdhan, Geetha Luthra, Nikhil Nayyar, Urmila Sirur, D.S. Mahra (NP), Revathy Raghavan (NP), D. Bharathi Reddy (NP) and Sanjay R. Hegde (NP), Advs.
Subject: Environment
Catch Words
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Sections 2, 4(2), 11, 16, 17, 20, 25, 25(3), 26 and 26A; Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977 - Sections 5, 6, 6(1) and 6(2); Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 - Section 11, 11(1) and 11(2); Andhra Pradesh Grain Panchayat Act, 1964 - Section 131(3); Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Rule 3; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; Andhra Pradesh Animal Preservation Act; Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994; Mysore Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 - Sections 4, 5, 8 to 11 and 18; States Reorganization Act, 1956; Mysore Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act, 1948; Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) - Section 195; Indian Penal Code - Section 191; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 18, 19(1), 19(2), 21, 25, 26, 32, 37, 39, 47, 48, 48A, 51A, 136 and 226; State Animal Preservation Law; Environmental Law
Cases Referred:
Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of A.P. and Ors. (1995) Suppl. (1) SCC 370; Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/1122/1997; Systopic Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dr. Prein Gupta and Ors. 1994 Suppl.(1) SCC 160; K. Vasudevan Nair and Ors. v. U.O.I. and Ors. 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 134; Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and Ors. v. The State of Bihar 1959 SCR 629; State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Ors. MANU/SC/1352/2005; Kesavananda Bharathi v. State of Kerala MANU/SC/0445/1973
Prior History:
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 6.4.1993 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 13062/1992
Mentioned IN
Disposition:
Appeal allowed
Case Note:



Constitution — Export Promotion Policy — Slaughter — Articles 18, 21, 39(b) and (c), 47 of the Constitution of India 1950; Sections 5 and 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act 1977 — Abattoir — Cattle depletion — Held, after taking into consideration, the reports submitted by various authorities, the functioning of the abattoir would not result in depletion of buffalo population in the hinterland of the abattoir — Further held that as the policies were passed by the Central Government for promotion of export and product development of scheduled products, the question of striking down of the policy did not arise — However, it would always be open to the court to direct the Central Government or the State Government to renew or review its policy and to make a fresh policy — Not possible to strike down meat export policy of the Central Government as it did not violate the Constitutional provisions — Appeals disposed of

Labour and Industrial — Industrial Licence — Setting-up of Abattoir— Section 11(2) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act 1951 — Company had obtained permission granted by various authorities — Contention of the appellant was that the company had been wrongly issued permission to run its abattoir and must be directed to shut down its abattoir — Whether the company had been established in violation of location requirement, as mentioned in the LOI of the Central Government for issuance of industrial licence to it — Held, Section 11(2) of the Act, by which conditions could be imposed as to the location of the undertaking by the Central Government, was 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 — Further held that the question on location requirement was always a question of fact which could not be permitted to be raised at this stage — However, it was 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 — Appeals disposed of

Environment — Setting-up of Abattoir — Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981; Environment (Protection) Act 1986; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 — Schedule 1, Entry 50B of the Environment Protection Rules 1986 — Contention of the appellant was that no study had been made of the prevailing environment and the impact of the abattoir on it, hence, the precautionary principle was ignored by the authority before granting permission to run the slaughter house — Company had obtained permission granted by various authorities — Held, ordering closure of abattoir was not called for, rather directions would be given to the authorities to rectify its consent order in accordance with the Environment Protection Rules and also to direct the abattoir to strictly comply with it — Further held, in the event that abattoir failed to comply with such directions, it would be open to the authorities to direct closure of the unit — Appeals disposed of
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 Andhra Pradesh applied to the Gram Pauchayat, Rudraram for the requisite permission to construct a factory and other buildings connected therewith. On 24th March 1989, the Gram Panchayat concerned, issued a 'No Objection Certificate' (in short NOC'). After obtaining opinion of the District Medical and Health Officer, Director of Town Planning and Director of Factories, State of Andhra Pradesh, permission was granted to the company to run a slaughter house on the selected site on. 29th June 1989.
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 Andhra Pradesh to grant, industrial licence to set up abattoir slaughter house at the selected site.
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 28th August 1991 the Agriculture and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority informed the company that the Government of India was keen to promote the export of meat and meat products as part of its export drive.
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 appr