http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 32  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3968 of 1994

PETITIONER: Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh

RESPONDENT: State of A.P.& Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/03/2006

BENCH: CJI & TARUN CHATTERJEE

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  (With C.A.Nos.3964-3967 of 1994)  With Cont .Pet. No\005\005\005.\005..IN C.A.No.3967/1994 And CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4711-4713 OF 1998

Umesh & Others                                      \005Appellants Versus  State of Karnataka & Ors.                                          \005Respondents.

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

       Al-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.         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 ’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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 32  

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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 32  

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 \026 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 32  

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."  (Emphasis supplied).

       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 hereinabove, the State Government  constituted a Committee known as "Krishnan Committee" for examining  and reporting the matters referred to in the order of the High Court.   The Krishnan 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 32  

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."          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 on 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 be 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. 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 unhygenic 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."

       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. From 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.         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.           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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 32  

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.         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.         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.          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.          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 Husbandry observed on 21st December, 1990 that the  establishment of slaughter house would not really result in any  depletion of cattle in the State.          (3) On  28.9.1991 the issue was again considered by the 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.  

       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 no 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 his mis-statement that he had not filed any other writ petition  seeking similar reliefs.  

       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. In Writ Petition No.10454 of 1992 the main contention

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 32  

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.  

       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.          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.         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 vs. 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 take 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 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 yet 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 32  

appropriate orders in the matter as directed by the  judgment of the High Court dated November 16,  1991. 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 than go all  the way to far away districts of Andhra Pradesh  State like Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam or for that  matter, Nellore 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 far 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 decision of the Central Government  shall be recorded in a reasoned proceeding, which,  shall be 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 32  

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)

       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 Krishnan 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 & Ors.  Vs.  State of A.P. & Ors.  [1997 (3) SCC 707].    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 be 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 house are  not based on correct scientific analysis and adequate  reasoning, and therefore, are not acceptable.   From the  facts and analysis it is obvious 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 32  

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 abattoir 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.

       Number of petitions were filed by the appellants in the appeals  challenging the report and finally this Court by its order dated  12th  March 1997 (reported in 1997 (3) SCC 707 ) made the following  observations : "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 rightly 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 takes  into consideration the census figures of cattle in  Telangana region or in the areas contiguous to  Medak District ( where the said unit is 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 32  

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 statistics/census  figures of cattle population including buffalo  population for the period 1987 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."

               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.         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 data 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.

     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.

       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%.                             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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 32  

(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.         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 LOI 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 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.            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, LOI 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.

       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 subsection 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,  subsection 2 of Section 11 of the Act by which conditions can be  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’.          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.                           Economic liberalization was made by the Central Govt. on 25th of  July, 1991 and following the said policy,  the Government of Andhra

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 32  

Pradesh also issued a Notification on 3rd February 1992 which 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 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  computation 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.          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 Husbandry, A.P. (c)     Letter of Intent from Ministry of Industry, 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.

       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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 32  

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-Kabeer (company).

       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.                   The learned counsel appearing 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).         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.   However, as environmental pollution has now  become a public nuisance, we thought it fit to go into this question and  decide the same.          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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 32  

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.          It may also be noted that in the interim judgment dated 12.3.1997  reported in (1997) 3 SCC 707, 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. 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 slaughterhouse 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-Kabeer 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.               In this connection, two further questions had arisen in relation to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 32  

compliance with environment standards maintained by Al-Kabeer,  which were raised by the appellant Shri Tukkoji, in C.A. Nos. 3964-65  of 1994.          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 right 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 hold at this stage that a third party has  any right to seek information or material from the  State Board at or before granting of consent by it  under S. 25(3) of the Water Act. It is not as if  aggrieved party is left without a remedy. After  consent  is granted\005 any third party who feels  aggrieved\005 can make a complaint to the Court of a  First Class Magistrate\005 Apart from that the State  Board has ample powers to review its order  granting consent by modifying or revoking any  existing condition\005"                                                                                 ( Emphasis s upplied)                                                                                                      

       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 NOC.     Therefore, it cannot be held,  that the NOC  was vitiated by reason of  non-disclosure of information to the appellant Tukkoji prior to its  issuance.         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 APPCB  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\005"

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 32  

       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."         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 not 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 no 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.         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 due 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  Art.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.

               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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 32  

buffaloes 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. 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.

       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 leads 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 Art. 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 32  

Animals Act, 1960.  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.  

       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  not 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.

       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.

       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 the issue is not whether the total population is decreasing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 32  

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.

       As noted hereinearlier, we have not only carefully examined the  Krishnan Committee report but also the other reports submitted by 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.         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.         As noted hereinearlier,  in the interim direction made by this Court  in these appeals on 12th March 1997 ( 1997 (3) SCC 707 ),  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 would not be  any depletion effect on live stock population  particularly buffaloe, sheep and goat in Medak and  contiguous districts, Telangana region or in the  State of Andhra Pradesh as a result of continuance  of Al-Kabeer at the full capacity utilization."  (Emphasis supplied).

       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 I.A. 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 been stated  that the State Govt. had deputed five veterinary Asstt. Surgeons to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 32  

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\005\005"                                                         ( Emphasis supplied )

       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 Al- 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  Al-Kabeer and thereafter to see the figures two years after  commencement of operation of  Al-Kabeer.   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 after 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 32  

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  17th 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 (+)

       Karimnagar                    448896                    441361 (-)

       Warangal                              438324                    486779 (+)

       Khhammam                      498537                    565810 (+)

       Nalgonda                        622827                  592271 (-)

                               PERCENTAGE VARIATION

                Year                            A.P.State               Telangana Region

       1999  census  (over     + 5.3%          +4.6%

1993 census

       2003      census   (over        + 10.35%                + 10.91%

1999      census

                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 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 Art.  226 of the Constitution or by this Court under Art.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. vs.  Dr. Prem Gupta & 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 Art.226 or by this Court under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 32  

Art.  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 26-A of the Act on the basis of expert advice  and the Act makes provision for obtaining such  advice through the Board 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 Sub- Committee 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 Sub- Committee 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,  Assistant Professor of Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi,  Dr. M.Durairaj Consultant, Cardiologist, Director of  Cardiology, Poona Hospital and Research 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 )                           Similar is the view expressed by this Court in K.Vasudevan Nair &  Ors.  Vs. U.O.I. & 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 32  

depletion but on the other hand suggested some measures that may be  taken to minimize cattle depletion.

       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.

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 & Ors. vs. 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 vs.  Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Ors. reported in  [2005 (8)  SCC 534], 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 Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh cannot at all be accepted,  as we are not concerned with the case of striking down a particular  provision which imposes an 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.

       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 reviewable. This policy violates Art. 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 Art. 47 of the  Constitution as it leads to malnutrition  but  also Art. 48 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 .       The learned counsel  has also contended that this  policy also violates Art. 21 by depriving the society of the useful benefits  of animals.  It was further submitted that the A.P. Act, 1977 does not  mention any specific age limit under which cattle slaughter is  prohibited and therefore the determination of healthy and useful cattle  is subjective and with a scope of maneuverability.   Although no  provision of the aforesaid Act prescribes the age of  any slaughterable  buffalo but the A.P. animal husbandry manual prescribes the age of  slaughterable buffaloes as above 10 years.  According to this  appellant,   these buffaloes are useful even till 15-20 years.   Lastly, it was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 32  

submitted that the agencies of the State Government also recommended  ban on export of meat and such being the position this Court may  strike down the policy of the Central Govt. so far as the meat export  policy is concerned.   This submission of the appellant was contested by  the learned counsel for the respondents, in particular, the learned  Advocate for APEDA in C.A. No. 3968/1994.   In our view, as the  policies taken by the Central Govt. and APEDA, which is a creation of  the Parliament for promotion of export and product development of  scheduled products, the question of striking down of the policy cannot  arise.   However, it will be always open to the Court to direct the Central  Govt. or the State Government to renew or review its policy and to make  a fresh policy at any time if they find it to be  expedient to do so.   As  noted herein earlier, APEDA is a statutory authority created by an Act  of Parliament for promotion of export and product development of  scheduled products.   "Scheduled Product" has been defined in section  2(i) of the Act which means any of the agricultural or processed food  products included in the Schedule.   Item No.2 to the Schedule of the  Act of 1985 mandates that APEDA shall promote export and  development of scheduled products.   It is the consistent policy of the  Government of India to encourage export of meat and meat products,   as would be evident from the following:         Export of buffalo meat is on the  OGL list. (i)     Government of India in its Directive has stressed  export of meat and meat products as thrust area. (ii)    Current "Foreign Trade Policy" encourage export  of meat.   It provides for export of meat of buffalo  provided it is accompanied by a certificate from  the designated veterinary authority to the effect  that meat or offal are from buffalo not used for  breeding and milching purposes.

       It appears that the certificates that are to be or already issued was  in conformity with the decision of the Constitution Bench’s judgment in  Mohd. Hanif Qureshi’s case reported in [1959 SCR 629].    It is the case  of the Government as well as the abattoir that only those buffaloes  which are unfit for milching, breeding and draught were permitted to be  slaughtered and are being slaughtered.    We have already discussed  the decline of cattle population because of the operation of Al-Kabeer  in  this judgment hereinbefore.   In Mohd. Hanif Qureshi’s case reported in  [1959 SCR 629] the issue was not whether the population of live stock  was increasing or not but whether the population of healthy live stock  was increasing. Although it was sought to be argued by the appellant  that due to slaughter of buffaloes by Al-Kabeer,  the population of  healthy buffaloes was declining even then in view of our discussion  made hereinearlier, it must be confirmed that there is no depletion of  cattle/buffalo wealth due to operation of Al-Kabeer. Apart from that, it  appears from the record that Al-Kabeer slaughterhouse was built in  accordance with European Economic Community Standards and is one  of the most modern, scientific, integrated slaughterhouses in India with  an installed capacity of 15000 MT.  If in any way Al-Kabeer is directed  to close down their factory the said action on the part of the Central  Government would be to discourage private entrepreneurs to invest in  the meat industry which will affect the reputation of India in the export  market of meat.  As we have already noted, the interim direction given  by this Court on 12th March 1997 by which the production of Al-Kabeer  was reduced to 50 %, the total export of meat from India, which is  about 1,70,000 MT., did not reduce. For the reasons aforesaid, we are  unable to direct at this stage to strike down the policy regarding meat  export from India to foreign countries. We are of the view that the policy  of the Central Government cannot be easily struck down only because  there was slight decline of cattle growth nor it can be struck down  before looking into the entire aspect of the matter. It is also well settled  that policy decision of the Government cannot be interfered with or  struck down merely on certain factual disputes in the matter. It is not  open to the Court to strike down such decision until and unless a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 32  

serious and grave error is found on the part of the Central Government  or the State Government. Such being the position, we are unable to  strike down this meat export policy of the Central Government, as in  our view, it does not violate the constitutional provisions. That apart,  the question regarding constitutionality as mentioned above was not  argued before the High Court seriously.     Accordingly, this submission  of Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh is hereby rejected.                                                                  Apart from that,  from the discussion made hereinabove, we find  that it is also the consistent policy of the Government of India to  encourage export of meat and meat products.   The current foreign  trade policy also encourages export of meat provided that a designated  veterinary authority certifies that it is not obtained from buffalo used  for breeding and milching purposes.   It is true that in the Constitution  Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat  vs.   Mirzapur reported in [2005 (8) SCC 534]  it has been held that the  protection envisaged under Art.48 extended even to cattle that had  ceased to be milch or draught, provided they fall within the category of  milch and draught cattle.   In  State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur (supra) it  has also been held that cattle  forms  the backbone of Indian  agriculture and they remain useful throughout their lives.   While  dealing with Art. 48 and 48-A of the Constitution read with the  fundamental rights, the Constitution Bench further held that both  directive principles and fundamental duties must be kept in mind while  assessing the reasonableness of legal restrictions placed upon  fundamental rights.   However, striking down a law or policy on the  ground that it violates a directive principle or fundamental duty was not  an issue before the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of State  of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur (supra).   It is true that in the aforesaid  Constitution Bench decision it has been held that total prohibition of  cow and cow progeny slaughter may be justified. However, it has not  been held in that decision that laws and policies which permit  such  slaughter are unconstitutional.  Therefore, the position of  law remains  that the directive principles and fundamental duties cannot in  themselves serve to invalidate a legislation or a policy.    Moreover,  the  export policy itself permits  only export of meat from buffaloes that are  certified as not useful for milching, breeding or draught purposes.  Therefore, if properly implemented, it cannot be said that the policy will   necessarily have adverse consequences, especially in view of the foreign  exchange obtained through it.   Accordingly, we are unable to accede to  the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the meat  export policy, as made by the Central Government must to be struck  down.         For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that meat export  policy need not be struck down subject to constant review by the  Central Government in the light of its potentially harmful effects on the  economy of the country.

       In view of our discussion made hereinabove and for the reasons  stated hereinearlier we are of the view that these appeals can be  disposed off by giving the following directions:-

1.      The APPCB is hereby directed to rectify its consent order given to Al- Kabeer following Rule 3 read with Schedule 1, Entry 50-B of the  Environmental Protection Rules, 1986. In the event abattoir fails to  comply with such rectified consent order of the APPCB, it would be  open to the authorities to direct closure of the Al-Kabeer unit. 2.      The APPCB is directed to file reports before the State Government as  well as Central Government relating to compliance with the pollution  standards by Al-Kabeer specified under its consent order in  compliance with the Environmental Protection Rules, 1986, once in  every three months. 3.      The Company is directed to regularly monitor pollution of air and  water by its abattoir. It is further directed to file a report of its  compliance with the Environmental laws, particularly, the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 32  

Environmental Protection Rules, 1986, before the APPCB every  month.  4.      Al-Kabeer is directed to file reports before the State Government on  cattle population in its surrounding areas once every year. The State  Government shall examine the correctness of the said report and  thereafter take appropriate action.  5.      The State Government is directed to monitor regularly and strictly in  respect of Al Kabeer’s compliance with all applicable laws,  particularly the provisions of  the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow  Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977, once every three  months and to obtain reports on the same and thereafter to take  necessary action for their proper implementation.  6.      The Company is directed to 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 within the next three months. The State Government is  directed to take all the necessary steps for this purpose. 7.      Modernizing the existing abattoirs in the state is advisable and in  that regard the State Government may take steps that it considers  necessary.  8.      Finally, the Central Govt. is directed to review the meat export policy,  in the light of the Directive Principles of State Policy under the  Constitution of India, and also in the light of the policy’s potentially  harmful effects on livestock population, and therefore on the  economy of the country.         However, we keep it open to the Central Government and the State  Government to consider the distance prohibitions as indicated in the  LOI, the Notifications and General Order of the State Government and  in the event, the Central Government or the State Government comes to  the conclusion that the abattoir cannot be permitted to run their  business at the site in question, in that case, the Central Government  or the State Government, as the case may be, shall be entitled to  proceed in accordance with law.                 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in  view of the fact that this Court by an interim order granted stay of the  operation of the direction of the High Court for initiating a prosecution  of Dr. Kishan Rao ( Appellant in C.A. No. 3966/1994 ) under section  195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 191 of the  Indian Penal Code, we do not find any reason to proceed with this  prosecution against Dr. Kishan Rao any further.  

       In view of the disposal of appeals by this common judgment, all  Interlocutory Applications and Contempt Petition pending, if any, shall  also stand disposed of.             There will be no order as to costs.

In Civil Appeal Nos. 4711-4713 of 1998 :

               Although these three appeals being C.A. Nos. 4711-4713 of  1998 ( Umesh & Ors.  vs.  Karnataka & Ors. ) were heard along with  C.A. Nos. 3964-68 of 1994, it was thought fit to deliver the judgment in  C.A. Nos. 4711-4713 of 1998 separately, as the questions involved in  these appeals were not  in issue in C.A. Nos. 3964-68 of 1994.    Accordingly,  the judgment in these three appeals which involved  common questions of law and fact is being delivered in the following  manner:-                  Before the Karnataka High Court, two writ petitions being W.P.  Nos.32999-33000/1995 were filed by one N. Umesh and Hindu  Jagarana Vedike.   Another Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.  31217/1992 was filed in the same  High Court by Smt. Sarojini  Muthanna and H. Mangalamba Rao and others. In the Writ Petitions  bearing W.P. Nos. 32999 of 1995 and W.P. No. 33000 of 1995 filed by  Umesh and Hindu Jagaran Vedike, the following reliefs were sought :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 32  

(1)       A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to  strictly enforce the provisions of sections 4,8,9,10,11 and 18 of the  Mysore Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964   ( in short "the 1964 Act")  in Chamarajnagar Taluk of Mysore District  and also to direct State Government to establish institutions for taking  care of cows and other animals in accordance with the aforesaid  provisions of the Act at the earliest. (2) Declare section 5 of the 1964 Act as void and ultra-vires the spirit of  the Directive Principles of the Constitution \026 Act.37 and 48 \026 and  violative of Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution.                (3) Declare partial prohibition of slaughter of bovine cattle under 1964  Act as violative of Arts. 14,15,21,25 and 26 of the Constitution.        (4) Issue a writ of total prohibition of slaughter of bovine cattle in the  whole of Karnataka.

       Practically, the same reliefs were claimed by Sarojini Muthanna  and Mangalamba Rao   in  W.P. No. 31217 of 1992.   However, W.P. No.  31217 of 1992 relates to Kodagu and Coorg districts of Karnataka.            After exchange of affidavits and after hearing the learned counsel  for the parties all the three Writ Petitions were rejected by the High  Court  by a common judgment  dated 16th March 1998. Against this  judgment the present appeals have been preferred by the appellants  which were admitted by this Court on grant of special leave and heard  in presence of the learned counsel for the respective parties.         The relevant facts which are required to be taken into  consideration in deciding these appeals are enumerated below.         The three Writ Petitions filed in the High Court  were in the nature  of Public Interest Litigations and the petitioners were  prosecuting the  Writ Petitions before the Court in representative capacity.              The first appellant herein is an honourary Animal Welfare Officer  of the Animal Board of India.   Second appellant herein i.e. Hindu  Jagarana Vedike  is an organization which is working to uphold Hindu  values and is interested in protecting sanctity of "cow".   The third  appellant herein is a native of Kodagu district and belongs to Kodava  community of Hindus.    The fourth appellant herein is a  practicing  Advocate and resident of Bangalore city.   

       In the erstwhile State of Coorg which now forms part of Karnataka  State there had been a total prohibition of slaughter of cows and its  progeny since slaughtering or killing of cows and calves or bullocks or  oxen was considered an unpardonable sin and was considered as being  opposed to sentiments, customs and religious beliefs of the natives of  Coorg called ’ Kodavas’.     Further all these religious sentiments had for  long received statutory protection and had been followed before the  reorganization of the State under the States Reorganization  Act of  1956.   

       In the erstwhile State of Mysore, the Mysore Prevention of Cows  Slaughter Act 1948 prohibited slaughter of cows, bulls, bullocks,  buffaloes and calves in order to conserve cattle wealth of the State.     In  1964,  after the merger of the former State of Coorg with the State of  Mysore, a new enactment, namely, the Mysore Prevention of Cow  Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act 1964 ( in short "1964 Act"), which  repealed the 1948 Act,   modified the animal slaughter laws in the State  to the following effect :  (1)     Slaughter of cows and  calves of she buffaloes was totally  prohibited (Section 4) (2)     Other bovine animals namely bulls, bullocks, buffaloes could be  slaughtered after obtaining a certificate in writing from the competent  authority that the animal is fit for slaughter i.e. it is above the age of 12  years or that the animal has become permanently incapacitated for  breeding, draught or milch purposes due to injuries, deformities or any  other cause. (Section 5)         Under Sec. 18  of the 1964 Act  the State Government has the  authority to establish or direct establishment of institutions to take care

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 29 of 32  

of cows and other animals.     Before us, the following questions had cropped up for decision: 1.      Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petitions all- together after holding that the State Government must strictly  implement the provisions of the 1964 Act?   2.      Whether the view taken by this Court in Mohd.Hanif Quareshi  Vs.   State of Bihar [1959 SCR 629] regarding implementation of Art. 48  directive principle vis-‘-vis fundamental right guaranteed requires  modification in the light of larger bench decision in Keshavananda  Bharti Case (1973 (4) SCC 225) and the subsequent decisions of this  Court? 3.      Whether the terms in Art. 48 are wide enough to include all  categories of bovine cattle? 4.      Whether section 5 of the 1964 Act is unconstitutional in so far as  it does not impose a total prohibition of slaughter of bovine cattle and  whether a writ must be issued directing the State to prohibit slaughter  of all bovine cattle in the State of Karnataka?

          Before we decide these questions, we may keep in mind the  findings arrived at by the High Court of Karnataka in the impugned  judgment.   

       As noted  herein earlier, we find from the reliefs claimed in all the  three aforesaid Writ Petitions,  a prayer was made seeking a writ in the  nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to strictly enforce  the provisions of Sections 4, 8 to 11 and 18 of the 1964 Act in  Chamarajnagar Taluk of Mysore District, Coorg District, Kodagu  District  and also to direct the State Government to establish  institutions for taking care of cows and other animals in accordance  with the aforesaid provisions of the Act at the earliest.

       In paragraph 8, the High Court concluded in the impugned order  on this relief in favour of the appellants and found that " it is needless  to state that the Government and its officers are required to strictly  enforce and implement the provisions of the Act". (Emphasis supplied).  That being the conclusion made by the High Court in the body of the  judgment, in respect of Question No.1, we feel it proper at this stage to  direct the State Government and its instrumentalities to strictly enforce  and implement the provisions of Sections 4, 8 to 11 and 18 of the 1964  Act without going into this question in detail. It is needless to state that  statutory provisions are required to be strictly complied with and  therefore it is the duty of the State authorities to comply with the  aforesaid provisions of the 1964 Act. In this view of the matter,  Question No.1 as framed herein earlier is decided in favour of the  appellants by directing the State Government and other State  authorities to strictly enforce and  implement the provisions of Sections  4, 8 to 11 and 18 of the 1964 Act.             Even though this conclusion was arrived at by the High Court in  favour of the appellants, ultimate decision,  however,  went against  them i.e. Writ Petitions were dismissed in their entirety.    

       Let us now deal with the second issue raised by the appellants  before us.   According to the appellants, the view taken in  Mohd. Hanif  Quareshi & Ors. vs. State of Bihar [1959 SCR 629] decision vis-‘-vis  relationship between  Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights  requires modification in the light of the decision in the case of  Kesavananda Bharathi  vs. State of Kerala ( 1973 (4) SCC 225) and  subsequent decisions.   We need not deal with this aspect of the matter  in detail in view of the recent decision of this Court in the case of State  of Gujarat  Vs. Mirzapur [2005 (8) SCC 534].   The decision of this  Court in the case of  Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Ors. Vs.  State of Bihar   [1959 SCR 629] has now been over-ruled on this point by the  Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Mirzapur case.   Therefore,  this question is decided in favour of the appellants.   In Mohd. Hanif  Quareshi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar [1959 SCR 629] the contention that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 30 of 32  

a law enacted to give effect to Directive Principles cannot be held to be  violative of fundamental rights was rejected on the ground that :

" a harmonious interpretation has to be placed upon  the Constitution and so interpreted it means that the  State should certainly implement the directive  principles but it must do so in such a way that its  laws do not take away or abridge the fundamental  rights, for otherwise the protecting provisions of  Chapter III will be "a mere rope of sand".( Emphasis  supplied).  

       This view was, however, not accepted in the aforesaid Constitution  Bench decision in the case of State of Gujarat  vs.  Mirzapur [(2005) 8  SCC 534].   The Constitution Bench noted that after the decision in  Kesavananda Bharathi  vs. State of Kerala  [1973 (4) SCC 225] the  position is :

       "A restriction placed on any fundamental right  aimed at securing Directive Principles will be held  as reasonable and hence intra vires subject to two  limitations : first that it does not run in clear  conflict with the fundamental right, and secondly  that it has been enacted within the legislative  competence of the enacting legislature under Part  XI Chapter I of the Constitution."( Emphasis  supplied )

       In Paragraph 22 of the decision in the case of State of Gujarat  Vs.  Mirzapur it has been held as follows:

       "The restrictions which can be placed on the  rights listed in Article 19(1) are not subject only to  Articles 19(2) to 19(6); the provisions contained in  the Chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy  can also be pressed into service and relied on for the  purpose of adjudging the reasonability of restrictions  placed on the fundamental rights."(Emphasis  supplied).

       Further, in the case of State of Gujarat  vs. Mirzapur,  so far as  Arts.48, 48-A and also Art. 51-A(g) are concerned the following was  held:

       "It is thus clear that faced with the question of  testing the constitutional validity of any statutory  provision or an executive act, or for testing the  reasonableness of any restriction cast by law on the  exercise of any fundamental right by way of  regulation, control or prohibition, the Directive  Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties as  enshrined in Art. 51-A of the Constitution play a  significant role.   The decision in Quareshi-1 in  which the relevant provisions of the three impugned  legislations were struck down on the singular  ground of lack of reasonability, would have been  decided otherwise if only Art. 48 was assigned its full  and correct meaning and due weightage was given  thereto and Arts.48-A and 51-A(g) were available in  the body of the Constitution." (Emphasis supplied)

       In view of the aforesaid admitted position in law, we therefore hold  the question No.2, as framed, must be decided in favour of the  appellants.  This question, even though decided in favour of the  appellants would not materially affect the decision of this appeal.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 31 of 32  

       The third question which concerns interpretation of Art. 48 of the  Constitution shall now be dealt with.   

In 1958 Quareshi’s case it was held that:         "the protection recommended by this part of  the directive is, in our opinion, confined only to  cows and calves and to those animals which are  presently or potentially capable of yielding milk or  of doing work as draught cattle but does not, from  the very nature of the purpose for which it is  obviously recommended, extend to cattle which at  one time were milch or draught cattle but which  have ceased to be such."        (Emphasis supplied).

       But in the case of State of Gujarat  vs. Mirzapur this position was  over-ruled and it has been held that:

       "In our opinion, the expression ’milch or  draught cattle’ as employed in Article 48 of the  Constitution is a description of a classification or  species of cattle as distinct from cattle which by  their nature are not milch or draught and the said  words do not include milch or draught cattle,  which on account of age or disability, cease to be  functional for those purposes either temporarily or  permanently. The said words take colour from the  preceding words "cows or calves". A specie of cattle  which is milch or draught for a number of years  during its span of life is to be included within the  said expression. On ceasing to be milch or draught  it cannot be pulled out from the category of ’other  milch and draught cattle." (Emphasis supplied).

       Such being the position and in view of the Constitution Bench  decision as aforesaid, it can no longer be held that the protection  recommended by this part of the directive under Art. 48 of the  Constitution can be said to be confined only to cows and calves and  those animals which are presently capable of yielding milk or of doing  work as draught cattle. The aforesaid Constitution Bench decision has  clarified that the protection under Art. 48 of the Constitution also  extends to cattle which at one time were milch or draught but which  have ceased to be such.   A submission was made by the learned  counsel for the parties on the usefulness of cattle.   In 1958 Quareshi’s  case it was held that cattle becomes useless after a certain age which is  for the Legislature to determine and thereafter their maintenance is a  burden on the economy of the country.   This position has also been  negatived by the decision of the Constitution Bench in the aforesaid  case,  and it has been held by this Court as follows:

       "We have found that bulls and bullocks do not  become useless merely by crossing a particular  age\005.The increasing adoption of non-conventional  energy sources like Bio-gas plants justify the need  for bulls and bullocks to live their full life inspite of  their having ceased to be useful for the purpose of  breeding and draught."( Emphasis supplied )

       Following the aforesaid findings and on the basis of the findings  that our economy has adequate cattle feed resources and alternative  sources of nutrition, in the case of State of Gujarat  vs.  Mirzapur ,   it  was held as under:

       "The Legislature has correctly appreciated the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 32 of 32  

needs of its own people and recorded the same in  the Preamble of the impugned enactment and the  Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to it.  In the light of the material available in abundance  before us, there is no escape from the conclusion  that the protection conferred by impugned  enactment on cow progeny is needed in the interest  of Nation’s economy. Merely because it may cause  ’inconvenience’ or some ’dislocation’ to the  butchers, restriction imposed by the impugned  enactment does not cease to be in the interest of  the general public. The former must yield to the  latter."        ( Emphasis supplied)

                Therefore, in our view, the interpretation of Art. 48 of the  Constitution has now been widened and "milch  and draught cattle"   include cattle which have become permanently incapacitated to be used  for milch and draught purposes.  Hence, this question is decided in  favour of the appellants.  Though, this question has been decided in  favour of the appellants, it does not make any material difference to the  final decision of this case.   It is the decision on the next issue i.e. issue  No.4 that will have impact on final directions to be issued in this case.

       Let us come to issue No.4, i.e. whether section 5 of the 1964 Act is  unconstitutional in so far as it does not impose a total prohibition on  slaughter of bovine cattle and whether a writ of mandamus must be  issued to the State Government to impose a total ban on slaughter of  bovine cattle in the State of Karnataka?    

       In State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur the impugned Act therein,   provided for prohibition on slaughter of certain types of cattle.  The  Constitution Bench of this Court in that case held such a legislation to  be constitutional in the light of the finding that the legislation was in  furtherance of the directive in Art. 48 of the Constitution and any  enactment which furthers the cause in the directive principles of State  Policy cannot be held to be unconstitutional.   It was, however, not held  that permitting slaughter of bovine cattle  by itself is unconstitutional.   In the case at hand, section 5 of the 1964 Act does not provide for a  total prohibition on slaughter of bovine cattle.   That being the case,  declaring section 5 of the 1964 Act as unconstitutional and directing  the State Government to impose a total ban on slaughter of bovine  cattle, as requested by the appellants, would lead to judicial legislation  and would encroach upon the powers of the Legislature.   Therefore,   the prayer of the appellants in issue No.4 to issue a writ to the State  Government to totally prohibit slaughter of bovine cattle is rejected.  

       In view of our discussions made hereinabove, even though the  Mirzapur decision supports the submission of the appellants on the  questions Nos.2 and 3, the issuance of writ of Mandamus to compel  total prohibition of cattle slaughter would only amount to judicial  legislation and would encroach upon the powers of the Karnataka  Legislature, as held by the High Court, which, in our view, was the right  approach made by it.    That being the position, we are of the view that  the question of declaring total ban on slaughter of cattle cannot be  permitted and section 5 of the Act cannot be said to be ultra vires of the  Constitution.   For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are allowed in  part, i.e. to the extent of directing the State Government to strictly   enforce  and implement the provisions of Sections 4, 8-11 and 18 of the  1964 Act and take action on any violations thereof.   Further, it is  directed that the State Government  maintain proper institutions  for  providing care and protection to cattle in the light of section 18 of the  1964 Act.           There will be no order as to costs.