2006 Supreme(SC) 289

2006(3) Supreme 691
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI., Tarun Chatterjee, J.
Akhil Bharat Gosewa Sangh—Appellant
versus
State of A.P. & Ors.—Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3968 of 1994
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 3964-3967 of 1994
And
Civil Appeal Nos. 4711-4713 of 1998
All Decided on 29-3-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : N.N. Goswamy, Manmohan, Sr. Advocates, B.S. Banthia, R.K. Joshi, Jasraj Shrimal, Sushil Kumar Jain, Mrs. Pratibha Jain, Mrs. Sheela Goel (NP), H.M. Singh (NP), Dhruv Mehta, Mohit Chaudhry, Ms. Shalini Gupta, S.K. Mehta, Manoj Saxena, S.K. Mettra, Mohanprasad Meharia, Hemant Sharma, S.N. Terdol, Ms. Divya Roy, Manish Jha, Ms. Bina Gupta, Sunil Kumar Jain, Manish Kumar, S. Borthakur, Ms. Pinky Anand, D.N. Govurdhan, Ms. Geetha Luthra, Nikhil Nayyar, Mrs. Urmila Sirur, D.S. Mahra (NP), Mrs. Revathy Raghavan (NP), Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy (NP), Sanjay R. Hegde (NP), Advocates.

VERY IMPORTANT POINTS
1. It is not open to the Court to strike down meat export policy of the Central Government, as it does not violate the constitutional provisions. Meat export policy need not be struck down subject to constant review by the Central Govt.
2. Al-Kabeer Exports Limited, a company formed for the purpose of carrying on the business of processing meat, mainly for export purposes, is directed to regularly monitor pollution of air and water by its abattoir and to file a report of its compliance with the Environmental laws before the State Pollution Control Board every month.

Headnote:(i) Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977—Sections 5 and 6—Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Sections 25 and 26—Slaughter house—Al-Kabeer Exports Limited, a public company formed for the purpose of carrying on business of processing meat, mainly for export purposes—Company with a view to establish a slaughter house in Rudraram village in State of Andhra Pradesh applied to the Gram Panchayat for the requisite permission to construct a factory and other buildings connected therewith—Permission was granted to the company to run a slaughter house on the selected site on 29-6-1989—Prior to the permission, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board also issued a ‘NOC’ on the application of the company subject to certain conditions concerning the treatment of effluents and air pollution—Recommendation was also made by the State to grant industrial licence to set up abattoir slaughter house at the selected site—It was made a condition 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 etc.—There was total prohibition of slaughtering of cows of all ages and calves of cows and buffaloes—Company started its construction work for purpose of running a slaughter house—Notice issued u/s 131(3) of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act suspending the permission granted for construction of factory—Some organizations opposed the proposed establishment of slaughter house—Impact of working of slaughter house on depletion of cattle, if any—Expert reports stating that functioning of Al-Kabeer Abattoir has not resulted in depletion of buffalo population in the region—Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.

       Held : From the record it appears that the recommendations regarding environment made by Krishnan Committee so far as the abattoir is concerned, were accepted by the Central Government as would be evident from this Court’s order dated 12th March, 1997. It also appears from the record that Al-Kabeer Company had invested huge amount for installation of elaborate anti-pollution equipment, and operates the same with consent obtained from APPCB. It is true that the standards prescribed by APPCB for Al-Kabeer while issuing its consent for slaughtering operation to begin, were indeed in violation of the Environment Protection Rules in so far as they prescribe a lower standard than was mandated by the aforesaid Rules. Under Rule 3 of the Rules, the State Boards are permitted to prescribe higher standards than those mentioned in the Rules but are not permitted to lower the standard. Considering the fact that the permission to operate the abattoir was granted by the APPCB, the State Government and also by various authorities of the State 10 to 15 years back and considering the fact that Al-Kabeer had installed elaborate anti-pollution equipment by investing huge amount, we are of the view that Al-Kabeer must be directed to comply with the Environment Protection Rules by lowering down the pollution levels at the abattoir to permissible limits, rather than to direct closure of the abattoir of the company. It also appears that the samples which were collected by the Department of Water and Waste Water Examination, Institute of Preventive Medicine, Narayanguda, Hyderabad from Al-Kabeer’s abattoir indicated violation of the standards prescribed under Environment Protection Rules. Though Al-Kabeer has installed elaborate anti-pollution equipment, it would be of no consequence if such equipment is in reality not bringing down the level of pollution below permissible limits. However, it cannot be overlooked that Al-Kabeer is continuing its operation for more than 10 years without any objection from the APPCB. Therefore, considering all the circumstances, we are of the view that directly ordering closure of Al-Kabeer Abattoir is not called for; rather directions may be given to APPCB to rectify its consent order in accordance with the Environment Protection Rules and also to direct Al-Kabeer to strictly comply with that rectified consent order and Environment Protection Rules. In the event abattoir fails to comply with such directions from the APPCB, it would be open to the authorities to direct closure of the Al-Kabeer unit. We are taking this view keeping in mind that the appellants had not seriously argued, during the course of hearing before this Court, that the company had in fact violated the standards laid down in the Environment Protection Act and Rules.(Para 38)

       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 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. (Para 66)

       (ii) Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951—Section 11—Establishment of Slaughter House—Distance prohibition for getting an industrial licence—In application for grant of licence, Al-Kabeer company had stated the exact location where they were going to set up the abattoir—Industrial licence was granted after this application was processed by the Central Government—Whether there is any ground either for cancellation of industrial licence or for closing down the unit—(No).

       Held : 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.(Paras 29 & 30)

       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.(Para 31)

       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 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).(Para 33)

       (iii) Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Sections 25, 26—Issuance of No Objection Certificate for establishment of a Slaughter House—Consent order—Section 25 of the Act does not confer any right on members of the public to demand information from the State Pollution Control Board prior to issuance of NOC—In the instant case, it cannot be held that NOC was vitiated by reason of non-disclosure of information to the appellant prior to its issuance.(Para 42)

       (iv) Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 4(2)(a), 11—Defect in composition of the State Pollution Control Board—Whether that would invalidate the consent order—(No).

       Held : 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’.(Para 44)

       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.(Paras 45 and 46)

       (v) Constitution of India—Articles 32, 136 and 226—Findings of expert bodies in technical and scientific matters—Not ordinarily to be interfered with by courts in exercise of their power under Art. 226 of the Constitution or by this Court under Art. 136 or 32 of the Constitution—Permission for establishment of slaughter house—Issue of cattle depletion due to functioning of Al-Kabeer Abattoir—Expert Committee of the Central Government examined all the issues—Appellant’s case that in Central Govt. report figures/statistics were misleading—Whether findings of expert body in technical and scientific matters can be interfered with by the Court—(No).

       Held : 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 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.(Para 57)

       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). Paragraph 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 Art. 32 or 136 of the Constitution.(Para 58)

       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.(Para 60)

       (vi) Mysore Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964—Sections 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 18—Constitution of India—Articles 37, 48, 25 and 26—Prayer for issuance of writ of Mandamus commanding respondents to enforce provisions of the Act and to direct the State Government to establish institutions for taking care of cows and other animals—Whether High Court erred in dismissing writ petitions altogether after holding that State Government must strictly implement provisions of the 1964 Act—Whether terms of Article 48 are wide enough to include all categories of bovine cattle—Whether Section 5 of the 1964 is unconstitutional—(No).

       Held : 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.(Paras 83 & 84)

       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.(Para 91)

       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.(Para 93)

       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.(Para 95)