PETITIONER: BUFFALO TRADERS WELFARE ASSN. & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: MANEKA GANDHI & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/11/1996 BENCH: KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.L. Hansaria
S.K. Dhokakia, R.F. Nariman, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Arun Jetly,
Sr. Advs., Amit Dhingra, Shakil Ahmad Syed, P.H. Parekh,
K.C. Dua, M.M. Isreily, M.C. Uddin, T.Qureshi, A.R. Khan,
S.P. Jha, Ms. Sheil Sethi, (M.C. Mehta), Adv. (NP), Hardeep
Singh, B.S. Banthia, R.C. Asthana, R.K. Maheshwari Ashok K.
Srivastava, Sushil Kumar Jain, Advs. with them for the
appearing parties.
O R D E R
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
O R D E R
These two applications relate to Idgah Slaughter House,
Delhi. The common prayer in both of them is to hold that the
order dated July 8, 1996 passed in IA No.22 connected with
Wp (C) No.4677 of 1985 does not have the effect of modifying
and/or setting aside the order dated 19.2.1996 passed in the
connected Civil Appeals, by which interim order of status
quo was passed, while granting special leave. As the order
of status quo is in conflict with the order passed in the
writ petition, a clarification has also been sought that
notwithstanding the later order, the order of status quo
would continue to remain in operation.
2. The order in the writ petition relates not only to
Idgah Slaughter House, but to 168 industries, of which the
Slaughter House is one. By that order it was held that all
the 168 named industries are “hazardous/noxious” and,
therefore, a direction was given that these industries shall
stop functioning and operating in the city of Delhi with
effect from November 30, 1996. Direction No. (8) stated that
the closure order shall be unconditional by adding that “(e)
ven if the re-location of industries is not complete they
shall stop functioning in Delhi with effect from November
30, 1996.
3. As the aforesaid order is relatable to 168 industries,
it has to be seen whether any exception can be made insofar
as the Slaughter House is concerned to permit it to operate
and function beyond November 30, 1996. It is worth pointing
out that when the Inter Locutory Application in the Writ
Petition was being heard, nobody had appeared on behalf of
the Slaughter House, despite ample opportunities having
been given. this apart, perusal of the order dated July 8,
1996 shows that that had come to be passed after this court
was satisfied beyond doubt regarding the bazardous nature of
the Slaughter House, because of what was found by Central
Pollution Control Board, Delhi Pollution Control Committee
and a Special Committee Constituted by this Court.
4. Further, insofar as the Slaughter House is concerned, a
Division Bench of Delhi High Court had, as early as
1.10.1992 by its judgment in CW Nos. 2267/90, 158/91 and
130/92, directed, inter alia, that the Slaughter House shall
be closed with effect from December 31, 1993 or from any
earlier date which may be fixed by the Court keeping in view
the facts and circumstances which may arise before that
date. The Delhi High Court came to be seized with another
petition on the same subject filed by Maneka Gandhi, who had
initially approached this Court by making a grievance
regarding the “unhgienic, inhuman and horrible conditions
prevalent at Idgah Slaughter House of Delhi.” This Court
directed the High Court to dispose of the petition. By
judgment dated 27th January, 1995 in Civil Writ No.2961/92
another Division Bench, inter alia, ordered for closure of
Slaughter House on or before 31.12.1995. The aforesaid two
appeals have challenged the later judgment of Delhi High
Court in which, while granting special leave, status guo
order reading as below was passed:-
“Our attention is drawn to the
minutes of the meeting dated
14.2.1996 which state that the
consensus between the authorities
and parties concerned was that
there was no place available in or
around Delhi to which the slaughter
house could be shifted. Having
regard to this unambiguous
statement the matters shall have to
be fully heard.
Special leave granted. The appeals
re expedited. Liberty is given to
the parties to move the Hon’ble the
Chief Justice for the purposes of
early hearing. In the meantime,
status-quo shall be maintained.”
5. A perusal of the status quo order leaves nothing to
doubt that it is founded on the consensus regarding no place
being available in or around Delhi to which Slaughter House
could be shifted. This consensus is reflected in minutes of
the meeting dated 14.2.1996. We have perused the same. It
shows that in the meeting 35 persons were present and the
participants showed their concern about “illegal
slaughtering in different localities” but because of non-
availability of alternative place, modernisation of the
Slaughter House was agreed to. Now, insofar as availability
of some other place in and around Delhi is concerned,
because of the sustained efforts made by this Court from
16th September onwards, an area of about 55 acres has been
made available and possession of the same has also since
been reportebly delivered. Thus, the basis of passing the
status-quo order no longer exists.
6. S/Shri Dholakia and Nariman, learned senior counsel
appearing for the applicants have nonetheless contended that
to take care of the difficulty which the consumers would
face if the slaughter house would be closed as directed, it
should be permitted to function at least upto the period
when alternative arrangement for slaughtering is made at the
new site. Shri Nariman read out to us the order passed by
this Court on May 18, 1994 in SLP(C) No. 7790-91 of 1994 in
which questions were raised as to what would happen when
thousands of workers would be thrown on the streets jobless
and how the meat requirements of a large city would be met?
It was submitted by Shri Dholakia that if the Slaughter
House would be closed, unhygienic meat would be supplied to
the consumers which would be more hazardous.
7. Insofar as the workers are concerned, it may be pointed
out that due attention has been paid, inter alia, to their
continuity of service and payment with full wages till the
closure and restarting of all the industries, as would
appear from direction (9) as contained in the order of July
8, 1996, relevant part of which reads as below:-
“(9) The workmen employed in the
abovementioned 168 industries shall
be entitled to the rights and
benefits as directed hereunder:-
(a) The workmen shall have
continuity of employment at the new
town and place where the industry
is shifted. The terms and
conditions of their employment
shall not be altered to their
detriment:
(b) The period between the closure
of the industry in Delhi and its
restart at the place of re-location
shall be treated as active
employment and the workmen shall be
paid their full wages with
continuity of service.
8. As regards the consumers, we are of the view that they
would not face much of the problem. It has been stated in
para 119 of the impugned judgment that hygenic and fresh
meat in adequate quantity can be brought from the nearby
slaughter houses as purely temporary measure. As the cattle
which are slaughtered are brought from outside, according to
us, there should be no difficulty in bringing the meat,
instead of the animals themselves.
9. As to the argument that closure of the slaughter houses
should see unhygienic meat in the market, we should like to
observe that this apprehension does not see justified
because there are licensed slaughter houses near Delhi. It
is worth pointing out that when the Idgah Slaughter House
had remained closed for nearly three months in 1994, because
of the strike by butchers, there is nothing on record to
show that the consumers had to remain satisfied by eating
unhygienic meat. The availability of the meat also did not
get adversely affected.
10. In the aforesaid premises, though the interlocutory
applications are liable to be dismissed, but the
consideration which is weighing with us in not dismissing
the same altogether is the interest of large number of
consumers in the territory of Delhi. This is the only
industry of its type in the territory. There being no other
slaughter house near at hand to cater the needs of the
residents of Delhi some hardship is likely to be caused to
the meateaters. At the same time the interest of environment
and ecology cannot be ignored. It cannot be disputed that
the slaughter house is being run under highly polluted
environment. With a view to keep balance between the need of
the people of Delhi and the environment, we direct as under:
(1) We permit the Idgah Slaughter House to function till
June 30, 1997 on the following conditions:
(i) Goats/he goats/sheep numbering
2000 per day shall be permitted to
be slaughtered in the premises, no
other animals shall be slaughtered.
(ii) Buffaloes (any sex), cows,
bulls (i.e. large animals) shall
not be permitted to be slaughtered
as their slaughter generates more
pollution. The Buffalo section is
the most polluted section in the
slaughter house, We reiterate that
except 2000 (Two thousand only)
goats/he goats/sheep no other
animals to be slaughtered in the
premises. The buffalo section of
the slaughter house shall be closed
with immediate effect.
(iii) The slaughter house shall be
kept environmentally clean by the
MCD.
(2) The Central Pollution Control Board shall visit the
slaughter house every two months till June 30, 1997 and file
report in this Court indicating the environmental status of
the premises.
(3) The animal market shall not be permitted to function
near the slaughter house. Holding the animals market in the
crowded part of the city is environmentally hazardous and
cannot be permitted.
(4) The Deputy Commissioner of Police of the area shall
stop the holding of the market in the vicinity of the
slaughter house. The meat sellers/butchers may bring the
animals to the slaughter house in an environmentally clear
manner and take the meat back in similar way. No market
should be permitted in the area.
(5) The Municipal Corporation of Delhi shall stop all
illegal slaughtering in Quasebpura area near Idgah or any
other part of Delhi. The Commissioner, Municipal
Corporation, Delhi shall take necessary steps to stop the
illegal slaughtering in all parts of Delhi. If necessary
police help be taken in this respect.
(6) We make it clear that heavy pollution fine shall be
imposed by this Court on polluters indulging in illegal
slaughtering. Even the MCD shall be liable to pollution fine
if the slaughter house is not kept environmentally clean.
The staff in charge of the slaughter house may personally be
liable to pay the fine.
(7) Municipal Corporation of Delhi shall take steps on war-
footing to construct the modern slaughter house on the
alternative land already acquired by the Corporation. We
make it clear that the Idgah Slaughter house would not be
permitted to continue at the present site beyond June 30,
1997.
The I.A.S are disposed of accordingly.