AKHIL BHARAT GOSEWA SANGH Vs. STATE OF A P
LAWS(SC)-2006-3-72
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 29,2006

AKHIL BHARAT GOSEWA SANGH,UMESH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

ABDULSATTAR YUSUFBHAI QURESHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2008-2-174] [REFERRED TO]
PARISONS FOODS P LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2008-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KADYAN VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2016-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
G BALAGOPALAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-2-89] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEED CO. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV SURI VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(SC)-2021-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA RAM AND ORS. VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-7-68] [REFERRED TO]
SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND CO LTD VS. MAHARASHTRA STATE POWER GENERATION CO LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2009-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
NEW KATTALAI CANAL AND AERIE PASANA VIVASAYIGAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION K SATHANOOR REP BY ITS PRESIDENT PALANISAMY TRICHY VS. UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT NEW DELHI [LAWS(MAD)-2011-9-178] [REFERRED TO]
MD. NAJRUL HASSAN VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2008-8-30] [REFERRED TO]
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2022-8-367] [REFERRED TO]
B RAMAMOORTHY VS. PROJECT DIRECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2011-11-415] [REFERRED]
K.ELUMALAI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2020-1-450] [REFERRED TO]
HARSH VIBHORE SINGHAL VS. CABINET SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-12-104] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN SHARMA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2010-11-410] [REFERRED TO]
ARIF USMAN KAPADIA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-4-156] [REFERRED TO]
GOVANSH RAKSHA ABIYAAN GOA VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-7-118] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITA SHRIMANT GHULE VS. SANGITA BIBHISHAN SANAP [LAWS(BOM)-2023-11-88] [REFERRED TO]
SRIVEN MARKETINGS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-3-134] [REFERRED TO]
SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-4-70] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-5-115] [REFERRED TO]
JAY CORPORATION VS. AMRELI NAGAR PALIKA [LAWS(GJH)-2020-1-145] [REFERRED TO]
JAY CORPORATION VS. AMRELI NAGAR PALIKA [LAWS(GJH)-2020-1-209] [REFERRED TO]
ANJALY BABU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2007-11-58] [REFERRED TO]
HIFZUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2022-7-53] [REFERRED TO]
G.SENDRAYAN VS. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES [LAWS(MAD)-2022-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
E. EASWARI VS. TAMILNADU TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2021-7-155] [REFERRED TO]
V R RAVEENDRAN VS. M SAROJINI [LAWS(KER)-2010-1-108] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIKH ZAHID MUKHTAR VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-5-54] [REFERRED TO]
R. N. SONI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI KUMAR VS. U.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2016-9-93] [REFERRED TO]
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. VS. NIKHIL AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-9-176] [REFERRED TO]
Sunita Senapati VS. State of Orissa [LAWS(ORI)-2010-5-65] [REFERRED TO]
SRIVEN MARKETINGS HYDERABAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2012-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
JAI A. DEHADRAI VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2023-2-95] [REFERRED TO]
UMMAID SINGH RAMCHANDRA VS. KARSHI UPAJ MANDI [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTORATE OF FILM FESTIVALS VS. GAURAV ASHWIN JAIN [LAWS(SC)-2007-4-59] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ANJANA ROY [LAWS(TRIP)-2022-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGER, EASWARA VILASOM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-7-231] [REFERRED TO]
C NATARAJAN VS. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND SPECIAL DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2010-9-234] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH RAMCHARAN UPADHYAY VS. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2022-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAMANNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2015-3-464] [REFERRED TO]
MATSYA JIVI SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-1-37] [REFERRED TO]
INDEPENDENT GAS BASED POWER PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI SARKARI RATION DEALERS SANGH DELHI VS. COMMISSIONER FOOD AND SUPPLIES GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2022-5-294] [REFERRED TO]
MAHALSA SERVICES VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-6-1162] [REFERRED TO]
R MOORTHY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-467] [REFERRED]
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT VS. P.V. KRISHNAMOORTHY AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2020-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGER SREE VIVEKANANDA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-8-359] [REFERRED TO]
U P GRAM PANCHAYAT ADHIKARI SANGH VS. DAYA RAM SAROJ [LAWS(SC)-2006-12-80] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAVENI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2007-4-387] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK RAMBHAU KALANE & ORS. VS. GRAM SEVAK, GRAM PANCHAYAT LIMPANGAON & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-1-159] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2011-8-102] [REFERRED TO]
TATYASAHEB RANCHANDRA KALE VS. NAVNATH TUKARAM KAKDE [LAWS(BOM)-2014-10-109] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. - (1.)AI-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 Panchayat, 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 Subsequently, on 18th July 1989 the Central Government (Ministry of Industry) granted a Letter of Intent (in short 'LOI') 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.

(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

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

If we are 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 Husbandry 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 LOI says that a new industrial undertaking 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 km 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.

(3.)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.
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 APPCB, 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 Gram 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 hearing 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. 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 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 be 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 this 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."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.