{"id":190474,"date":"2006-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006"},"modified":"2017-08-08T20:02:32","modified_gmt":"2017-08-08T14:32:32","slug":"akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 29 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 29 March, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: T Chatterjee<\/div>\n
Bench: Cji, Tarun Chatterjee<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3968 of 1994\n\nPETITIONER:\nAkhil Bharat Goseva Sangh\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of A.P.& Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/03\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nCJI & TARUN CHATTERJEE\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n(With C.A.Nos.3964-3967 of 1994)
\nWith Cont .Pet. No…IN C.A.No.3967\/1994
\nAnd
\nCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4711-4713 OF 1998<\/p>\n
Umesh & Others\t\t\t\t  \t    Appellants
\nVersus
\n State of Karnataka & Ors.\t\t\t\t            Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tAl-Kabeer Exports Limited ( in short ‘Company’) is a public
\ncompany formed for the purpose of carrying on the business of
\nprocessing meat,  mainly for export purposes. The company with a view
\nto establish a slaughter house in Rudraram village, in the Medak
\nDistrict of the State of Andhra Pradesh applied to the Gram Panchayat,
\nRudraram for the requisite permission to construct a factory and other
\nbuildings connected therewith.  On 24th March 1989, the Gram
\nPanchayat concerned,  issued a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (in short
\n‘NOC’). After obtaining opinion of the District Medical and Health
\nOfficer, Director of Town Planning and Director of Factories, State of
\nAndhra Pradesh,  permission was granted to the company to run a
\nslaughter house on the selected site on 29th June 1989.
\n\tPrior to this permission, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control
\nBoard (for short ‘A.P.P.C.B.’) also issued a ‘NOC’ on the application of
\nthe company filed on December 30, 1988, subject to certain conditions
\nconcerning the treatment of effluents and air pollution. In the said
\nNOC, it was inter-alia stipulated that the company shall obtain a
\nsecond ‘NOC’ and a regular consent under Sections 25 and 26 of the
\nWater (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 from A.P.P.C.B.
\nbefore commencing regular production.   The Director, Animal
\nHusbandry Department,  Government of Andhra Pradesh also issued a
\nNOC in favour of the company by a letter dated July 13, 1989, subject
\nto compliance with the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Andhra
\nPradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act,
\n1977 ( in short the ‘A.P. Act’) and the instructions issued there under.
\nSubsequently, on 18th July 1989 the Central Government (Ministry of
\nIndustry) \tgranted a Letter of Intent  (in short ‘L.O.I.’) under the
\nprovisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (in
\nshort ‘IDR Act’) for establishment of a new industrial undertaking to the
\ncompany at the selected site mentioned herein earlier for
\nmanufacturing of certain amount of Frozen Buffalo and Mutton Meat.
\nThe LOI was granted, subject to the following conditions:-
\n“(a) Buffaloes to be slaughtered shall be subject to anti-mortem
\nand post-mortem examination by the concerned authorities.\n<\/p>\n
(b) Only old and useless buffaloes shall be slaughtered and for
\nthis purpose, their production and processing shall be subject
\nto continuous inspection by the Municipal Authorities, Animal
\nHusbandry and Health Department of the State Government or
\nany other arrangement that the Central or the State
\nGovernment may evolve for ensuring this.\n<\/p>\n
(c) Slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and
\nbuffaloes male or female, shall be prohibited.\n<\/p>\n
(d) The company shall undertake measures for preserving and
\nimproving the breeds of the buffaloes by adoption of suitable
\nanimal husbandry practices in consultation with the State
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
(e) At least 90% production of frozen buffalo meat would be
\nexported for a period of ten years which may be extended by
\nanother five years at the discretion of the Government.\n<\/p>\n
(f) Adequate steps shall be taken to the satisfaction of the
\nGovernment to prevent air, water and soil pollution. Such anti-
\npollution measures to be installed should conform to the
\neffluent and emission standards prescribed by the State
\nGovernment in which the factory of the industrial undertaking
\nis located.\n<\/p>\n
(g) The new industrial undertaking or the industrial activity for
\neffecting substantial expansion or for manufacture of new
\narticle shall not be located within:\n<\/p>\n
(i) 50 kilometers from the boundary of the standard urban area
\nlimits of any city having a population of more than 25 lakhs
\naccording to the 1981 census; or\n<\/p>\n
(ii) 30 kilometers from the boundary of the standard urban area
\nlimits of any city having a population of more than 15 lakhs but
\nless than 25 lakhs according to the 1981 census;\n<\/p>\n
(h) In case the location of the industrial undertaking is in no
\nIndustry District, change of location from No Industry District
\nto any other area including a notified backward area either
\nwithin the same State or outside the State will not normally be
\nallowed.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe recommendation was also made by the State of Andhra
\nPradesh to grant industrial licence to set up abattoir slaughter house at
\nthe selected site.\n<\/p>\n
\tIf we are permitted to read the various conditions for grant of LOI
\nissued by the Central Government carefully, it would be evident that
\nonly old and useless buffaloes shall be available for slaughtering and
\ntheir production and processing shall be subject to continuous
\ninspection by the Municipal Authorities, Department of Animal
\nHusbandry and Health Department of the State Government. Clause (c)
\nof the LOI speaks of total prohibition of slaughtering of cows of all ages
\nand calves of cows and buffaloes, male or female. Clause (d) invites the
\ncompany to undertake measures of prohibiting and improving the
\nbreeds of the buffaloes by adoption of suitable animal husbandry
\npractices in consultation with the State Government. Clause (e) of L.O.I.
\nprovides that 90% of the production of frozen buffalo meat would be
\nexported for a period of ten years which may be extended by five years
\nat the discretion of the Government.  Clause (f) directs to take adequate
\nsteps to the satisfaction  of the Government to prevent air, water and
\nsoil pollution and for this purpose anti pollution measures must be
\ninstalled to enforce the effluent and emission  standards  prescribed by
\nthe State Government. Clause (g) of the LOI says that a new industrial
\nundertaking shall not be located either for effecting substantial
\nexpansion or for manufacture of new article if the said location is
\nsituated within 50 km from the boundary of the standard urban area of
\nany city having a population of more than 25 lakhs according to 1981
\ncensus or is located 30 km from the boundary of the standard urban
\narea limit of any city having a population of more than 15 lakhs but
\nless than 25 lakhs according to 1981 census.  On 28th August 1991 the
\nAgriculture and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority
\ninformed the company that the Government of India was keen to
\npromote the export of meat and meat products as part of its export
\ndrive.\n<\/p>\n
It is an admitted position that for the purpose of running the
\nslaughter house, the company, as noted herein earlier, had applied for
\nlicences to various authorities of the State Government as well as of the
\nCentral Government.   Having been satisfied and after holding enquiry,
\npermission and\/or licence was granted to the company first for the
\npurpose of making construction at the site in question and thereafter
\nfor running the slaughter house.   Such being the position and in view
\nof the reasons given hereinafter we cannot apprehend that the company
\nwas permitted, by the authorities, first to make construction of the
\nfactory at the selected site and thereafter to run the slaughter house
\nwithout being satisfied that the conditions for grant of permission and
\nlicence were observed by the company.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is not in dispute that on the basis of the LOI and permission
\ngranted by the State of Andhra Pradesh and other authorities including
\nthe APPCB, the company started its construction work for installation
\nof buildings and machineries, for the purpose of  running a slaughter
\nhouse. When some construction had progressed, the Executive Officer
\nof the Gram Panchayat concerned issued a notice in the exercise of his
\npower under section 131 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat
\nAct, 1964 suspending the permission granted for construction of the
\nfactory building and other buildings to the company and thereby
\ndirected stoppage of constructions until further orders. Challenging this
\norder of the Executive Officer, the company filed a Writ Petition before
\nthe High Court of Andhra Pradesh.  Some organizations opposed the
\nproposed establishment of the slaughter house and  they were
\nimpleaded as respondents to the said writ petition. The writ petition
\nwas, however, subsequently withdrawn by the company and instead a
\nrevision petition was filed before the State Government questioning the
\nnotice issued by the Executive Officer on the suspension of the
\nconstruction work which was permitted by the State Government.  After
\nhearing all the concerned parties, by an order dated 15th September
\n1990 the revision case was allowed by the State Government. A bare
\nreading of this order would show that the order of the Executive Officer
\nwas not only directed to be set aside but also the period of completing
\nthe construction work was extended by one more year, from 29th of
\nJune 1989.    Against the order passed in the revision case, two writ
\npetitions being W.P.No.13763 and W.P.No.13808 of 1990 were filed in
\nthe High Court  one by those organizations who were impleaded in the
\nearlier writ petition and the other by some individuals. These two writ
\npetitions were admitted by a learned Single Judge of the High Court
\nand by an interim order,  the operation of the order passed in the
\nrevision case was suspended pending decision of the two writ petitions.
\nAgainst the aforesaid interim order, the State Government as well as the
\ncompany filed writ appeals which were admitted by a Division Bench of
\nthe High Court and the interim order granted by the learned Single
\nJudge was stayed by an interim order of the Division Bench of the High
\nCourt. When the writ appeals came up for final hearing, the parties
\nbefore the Division Bench prayed that the writ petitions be disposed of
\non merits.  Such stand having been taken by the parties before the
\nDivision Bench, the writ petitions were heard and disposed of by an
\norder dated November 16, 1991 on merits with the following directions:-
\n“…However, we direct that the State Government
\nshall prepare a detailed report regarding the water,
\nair and environment pollution, if any, as at present
\nin Rudraram and surrounding villages of
\nPatancheru Mandal, Medak District having regard
\nto the provisions of the Water (Prevention and
\nControl of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention
\nand Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the
\nEnvironment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the rules
\nmade thereunder, the likely effect of the setting up
\nof the mechanized slaughter house at Rudraram
\nvillage on the prevailing environment, and also its
\nlikely effect on the cattle wealth in the area, after
\nconsidering the representations which the
\npetitioners in these writ petitions and other
\ninterested parties may submit in writing in this
\nregard. The petitioners herein and other interested
\npersons shall submit the representations and other
\nsupporting material in writing to the State
\nGovernment within four weeks from today. The
\nState Government shall prepare and submit a
\ndetailed report to the Central Government within
\neight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of
\nthis judgment. On receipt of the report, the Central
\nGovernment shall consider the same, having regard
\nto the provisions of the Water (Prevention and
\nControl of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention
\nand Control of  Pollution) Act, 1981, the
\nEnvironment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the
\nIndustries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951
\nand pass appropriate orders in relation to the
\nestablishment of the mechanized slaughter house
\n(abattoir) at Rudraram village, Patancheru Mandal,
\nMedak District, Andhra Pradesh, within eight
\nweeks from the date of receipt of the report.”\n<\/p>\n
(Emphasis supplied).\n<\/p>\n
\tIt may be kept in mind that this order of the Division Bench by
\nwhich certain directions were made by it to the State Government as
\nwell as to the Central Government was , however, not appealed before
\nthis Court. Pursuant to the directions given by the Division Bench in
\nthe aforesaid order, as noted hereinabove, the State Government
\nconstituted a Committee known as “Krishnan Committee” for examining
\nand reporting the matters referred to in the order of the High Court.
\nThe Krishnan Committee constituted by the State Government
\nsubmitted its report. It was noted in the report that some
\nfundamentalist organizations opposed the establishment of the
\nslaughter house on account of their religious and sentimental
\nopposition to the slaughter of animals, whereas the Central Government
\nand the Government of Andhra Pradesh  permitted the setting up of this
\nplant subject to the conditions imposed by them. So far as the pollution
\nof air and water was concerned, the committee was of the opinion that if
\ndue observance of the safeguards stipulated by the several concerned
\ndepartments, including Pollution Control Board was made by regular
\nsupervision, such pollution of air and water could be kept within a
\nreasonable limit. So far as the depletion of the cattle wealth is
\nconcerned, the Committee upheld the objections of the Food and
\nAgriculture Department in the following words:
\n“There are valid reasons for believing that this
\nargument is substantially valid. To start with the
\ncapacity of the plant is so large that with the existing
\ncattle wealth and possible increases thereto, will not
\nbe able to provide adequate input to this factory for
\nmore than a year or two unless drastic action is
\ntaken to increase the cattle wealth in the
\nsurrounding areas. The Food and Agriculture
\nDepartment have already brought out the fact that
\nthe cattle wealth in the surrounding areas as also in
\nthe other parts of the State is gradually going down
\nand the cattle available for slaughter is around 1.76
\nlakhs animals per year. As against this, the existing
\nslaughter houses in the State are already
\nslaughtering animals to the extent of 2.01 lakhs,
\nwith the result that with the level of existing cattle
\nwealth, there is no additional input likely to be
\navailable to cater to the huge capacity of the plant
\nbeing established at Rudraram. Food and
\nAgriculture Department has also brought out the
\nfact that it will be difficult for the factory to adhere to
\nthe existing regulations of the provisions of the
\nPrevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Prohibition
\nof Cow Slaughter Act, 1977 and every effort would be
\nmade to circumvent the provisions of this Act so that
\nadequate input supply is maintained (for the?)
\nfactory. It was reported in the newspapers sometime
\nago that a similar factory established in Goa, after
\noperation for one or two years had to drastically stop
\ntheir operations for want of adequate input
\nmaterial.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter expressing the opinion, the Krishnan Committee made the
\nfollowing recommendation as a condition for allowing the establishment
\nof the slaughter house:\n<\/p>\n
“In the circumstances it is essential to insist on the
\nCompany to ensure that there is an effective
\nprogramme to raise feed cattle on their own
\ninitiative for not less than 50% of the capacity so
\nthat the impact on the surrounding area is limited
\nto this extent atleast. Further increases in capacity
\ncan be considered only if the company increases its
\nown feed cattle. Eventually the Company will have
\nto produce feed cattle for their entire extent of
\noperations so as to minimise the impact on the
\nexisting cattle wealth.\n<\/p>\n
If this alternative is not acceptable to the Company,
\nthe proposal mentioned by the Food and
\nAgriculture Department of starting a modem
\nabattoir with an investment of about Rs. 15 crores
\nmay be directed to take over this plant and
\neventually the unhygenic private slaughter houses
\nin and around the city and government slaughter
\nhouses can be closed and the meat requirement for
\nthe city may be met from this factory.”\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have carefully examined the Report of the Krishnan Committee
\nand its recommendation for allowing the establishment of the slaughter
\nhouse.  From a plain reading of the report and its recommendation, it
\ncannot be doubted that the Krishnan Committee was in favour of the
\nestablishment of the slaughter house subject to the condition that it
\nshould raise its own cattle required by it –  initially to the extent of half
\nand ultimately to the full extent. The committee also opined that  if the
\ncompany was not willing to or not in a position to raise its own cattle
\nthen the company may not to be allowed to run or its capacity may be
\nutilised to meet the existing requirement by diverting the cattle from the
\nexisting slaughter houses. From this recommendation, it may be said
\nthat the existing slaughter houses, big and small,  government and
\nprivate, were to be closed down and the slaughter house of the company
\nwould be utilised to meet the present domestic requirements. It also
\nappears from the record that before forwarding this report to the
\nCentral Government,  the Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra
\nPradesh appended a Reference note which may not be required to be
\nnoted for our present purpose.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe report of the Krishnan committee was forwarded to the
\nCentral Government. The Central Government in its turn forwarded the
\nreport to the A.P.P.C.B.  for appropriate action.  However, no order was
\npassed by the Central Government on the said report at all,    although,
\nthe Central Government was a party to the order of the High Court, as
\nnoted herein earlier. That apart, the High Court also in its judgment as
\nnoted herein earlier, made certain directions to the Central Government
\nto pass an order after considering the report.
\n\tA Writ Petition being W.P.No. 6704 of 1991 was filed by two
\nenvironmentalists for issuance of a writ, restraining the Hyderabad
\nMetropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others from
\nsupplying\/selling water to the slaughter house of the company. An
\ninterim order was passed by the High Court on May 27, 1992 to the
\neffect that  the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage
\nBoard and others be restrained from considering the proposals for sale
\nof water to the company.\n<\/p>\n
\tDr. Kishan Rao appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3966 of 1994 along
\nwith Ahimsa Trust filed a Writ Application being Writ Petition No. 8193
\nof 1992. In this writ petition an interim order was passed to the effect
\nthat the NOC granted  by the APPCB shall be subject to further orders
\nin the writ application.\n<\/p>\n
\tAkhil Bharat Goseva Sangh which is appellant in Civil Appeal No.
\n3968 of 1994  filed a Writ Application No. 10454 of 1992 questioning
\nthe grant of permission for trial run of the slaughter house of the
\ncompany.\n<\/p>\n
\t A Writ Application being Writ Petition No. 13062 of 1992 was filed
\nby Dr. Kishan Rao along with one Smt. Satyavani questioning the
\npermissions granted for the establishment of the slaughter house of the
\ncompany.   As noted hereinearlier, Writ Petition No. 8193\/1992 was
\nfiled by Dr. Kishan Rao praying for similar reliefs which were prayed by
\nhim in Writ Petition No. 13062\/1992.   The Division Bench in the
\njudgment under appeal had taken a serious objection to the filing of two
\nWrit Petitions by Dr. Kishan Rao for similar reliefs and observed that
\nthere was mis-statement on the part of Dr. Kishan Rao saying that relief
\nclaimed in Writ Petition No. 13062\/1992 and reliefs claimed in Writ
\nPetition No. 8193\/1992 were different.\t\tAll these writ petitions
\nwere heard together and disposed of by the High Court by  common
\njudgment dated April 6, 1993.  In the aforesaid judgment, the High
\nCourt in substance observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(1) As the LOI granted by the Central Government and the
\nprovisions of the Andhra Pradesh Preservation of Cow Slaughter and
\nAnimal Preservation Act, 1977 permits slaughtering of only useless
\ncattle and in view of the fact that  maintenance  of such useless cattle
\ninvolves a wasteful drain on the nation’s meager cattle feed resources,
\nthe Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Central Government were
\nfully justified in granting permission for establishing and running the
\nslaughter house.\n<\/p>\n
 \t(2) In view of the agitations by some organizations the matter was
\nre-examined and fresh discussions were made by different concerned
\ndepartments of the State. On the question of slaughter policy of the
\nState and on re-examination of the issues involved, the Director of
\nAnimal Husbandry observed on 21st December, 1990 that the
\nestablishment of slaughter house would not really result in any
\ndepletion of cattle in the State.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) On  28.9.1991 the issue was again considered by the Director
\nof Animal Husbandry,  who reiterated his opinion expressed on
\n21.12.1990 which was also approved by the Andhra Pradesh Cabinet.
\nIn view of the aforesaid finding made by the Division Bench it was
\nfound by it that the establishment of slaughter house of the company
\nwould have only “negligible effect”   on  rate cattle growth in the State.\n<\/p>\n
\t(4) So far as the environment aspects were concerned, Division
\nBench found that the safeguards stipulated by APPCB and other
\nauthorities of the State were sufficient to ensure control of air and water
\npollution.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccordingly,  the Division Bench  was  of the opinion that all the
\nconcerned authorities of the State having granted requisite permissions
\nafter duly considering all the relevant facts and circumstances, there
\nwas no ground for intervening with the establishment and operation of
\nthe slaughter house. In the said judgment while dismissing the writ
\npetitions, the Division Bench also directed prosecution of Dr.Kishan
\nRao for his mis-statement that he had not filed any other writ petition
\nseeking similar reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe may restate that writ petition No.10454 of 1992 filed by Akhil
\nBharat Goseva Sangh was also disposed of by the Division Bench on
\nthe same day. In Writ Petition No.10454 of 1992 the main contention
\nof the petitioner was that the State Government had not complied with
\nthe directions made by the High Court in its judgment and order dated
\n16.11.1991 and in the said Writ Petition it was prayed that until and
\nunless the State Government sent its report, in accordance with the
\ndirection of the Division Bench of the High Court, to the Central
\nGovernment and the latter had taken decision thereon, the company
\nbe restrained from functioning. On this issue, the Division Bench held
\nthat this question was already dealt with in the judgment and
\ntherefore in this writ application there was no need to deal with it all
\nover again. C.A.No.3968 of 1994 was preferred against this judgment
\nin this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tC.A.Nos. 3966, 3967 and 3968 of 1994 have been preferred
\nagainst the judgment of the Division Bench of the A.P.High Court
\ndelivered on 6th April, 1993. The appellant in C.A.No.3966 of 1994 is
\nDr.Kishan Rao, the appellant in C.A.No.3967 of 1994 is Smt.Satyavani
\nwhereas the appellant in C.A.No.3968 of 1994 is Akhil Bharat Goseva
\nSangh.\n<\/p>\n
 \tCivil Appeal Nos. 3964-3965 of 1994 have been directed against
\nthe order of another Division Bench allowing the writ appeal preferred
\nby the company under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and setting aside
\nthe interlocutory order passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.M.P.
\nNo.9367\/1993 arising out of W.P. No. 7483\/1993.  In this way the five
\nappeals against the judgments  of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
\nwere placed before us for final disposal which were heard in presence
\nof the learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
\tBy an order dated 25th October 1994 passed in C.A.
\nNo.3968\/1994 with C.A. Nos.3964-3967\/1994 (Akhil Bharat Goseva
\nSangh vs. State of A.P. and Ors.)<\/a> reported in [(1995) Suppl.(1) SCC 370],
\nthe report of the Krishnan Committee was  taken into consideration by
\na Division Bench of this Court which made the following observations:\n<\/p>\n
\t“We are of the opinion that the rejection of
\nKrishnan Committee report in the above manner
\nreally amounts to slurring over the main
\nrecommendation of the said report. Moreover, the
\nlearned Judges have not dealt with the failure of
\nthe Central Government to consider the said report
\nand pass appropriate orders pursuant to the
\ndirections of the High Court in its judgment dated
\nNovember 16, 1991. The learned Judges have
\nobserved in the said judgment that it is not
\npossible for the Court to go into conflicting reports
\nof experts and that, therefore, they should leave the
\nmatter for the judgment of the Government. This
\nobservation again does not take into account the
\ndirections made by the said High Court in its
\njudgment referred to above. They have also
\nobserved that the Director of Animal Husbandry
\nhas given his opinion or revised opinion, as the
\ncase may be, after taking into consideration the
\nobjections of the Food and Agriculture department.
\nThough no material has been brought to our notice
\nin support of the said statement, we shall assume
\nthat it is so. Even then the fact remains that this
\nreconsideration by Director, Animal Husbandry
\ndepartment is said to have taken place sometime in
\n1990, whereas even in 1992, the Food and
\nAgriculture department was yet protesting with its
\nviews before the Krishnan Committee. Above all,
\nthe said reconsideration by the Director, Animal
\nHusbandry department far prior to the judgment of
\nthe High Court dated November 16, 1991 does not
\nrelieve the Central Government of the obligation to
\nconsider the Krishnan Committee report and pass
\nappropriate orders in the matter as directed by the
\njudgment of the High Court dated November 16,
\n1991. It was for the Central Government to
\nconsider the said report taking into consideration
\nthe several facts and circumstances mentioned
\ntherein as also the contending views expressed by
\nthe several authorities and departments referred to
\ntherein. This, the Central Government has clearly
\nfailed to do.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere is another relevant consideration. The
\nslaughter house has been in operation for the past
\neighteen months or so. It would be possible to find
\nout the effect, if any of the operation of  the
\nslaughter house had on the cattle population of
\nMedak and adjacent and nearby districts. It would
\nequally be relevant to ascertain, if possible, what
\npercentage of cattle slaughtered have been brought
\nfrom other States and what percentage from the
\nsurrounding areas. In this connection, it is relevant
\nto mention that the Animal Husbandry department
\nhas taken the total cattle population of the Andhra
\nPradesh State which is indeed misleading. The
\nslaughter house is situated on the western border
\nof Andhra Pradesh State, almost on the trijunction
\nof Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka.
\nIn such a situation, the slaughter house would
\nrather draw its requirements of cattle from the
\nsurrounding and nearby districts rather than go all
\nthe way to far away districts of Andhra Pradesh
\nState like Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam or for that
\nmatter, Nellore and Anantapur, which are situated
\nseveral hundreds of miles away. The transport of
\ncattle over long distance may induce  the slaughter
\nhouse to go in for cattle in the nearby areas,
\nwhether in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra or
\nKarnataka – unless, of course, the cattle are
\navailable at far cheaper rates at distant places,
\nwhich together with transport charges would make
\nit more economic for the slaughter house to bring
\ncattle from far away districts or from far away areas
\nin the country. Therefore, taking the entire cattle
\npopulation of the Andhra Pradesh State is bound to
\nconvey an incorrect picture. Perhaps, it would be
\nmore appropriate to take into consideration the
\ncattle population of, what the Krishnan Committee
\ncalls, the “hinterland” of the slaughter house.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of the fact that the controversy relating
\nto the establishment of the slaughter house has
\nbeen going on over the last several years, we think
\nit appropriate that the Central Government should
\nlook into all relevant aspects, as directed by the
\nHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh in its judgment
\ndated November 16, 1991, forthwith and record its
\nopinion before we take a final decision in the
\nmatter. The decision of the Central Government
\nshall be recorded in a reasoned proceeding, which,
\nshall be placed before this Court. The further
\norders to be passed would depend upon the
\ncontents of the report and the material so placed
\nbefore us.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe may make it clear that we should not be
\nunderstood to have expressed any opinion on the
\nmerits of the aspects which the Central
\nGovernment has been directed to consider by the
\nAndhra Pradesh High Court. Whatever we have
\nsaid in this judgment is only to indicate the failure
\nof the Central Government to abide by the said
\ndirections and to record reasons in support of the
\ndirection made herein. We have also not gone into
\nthe other questions raised by the learned counsel
\nfor the appellants. They can be considered at a
\nlater stage after the receipt of the material and the
\nreport from the Central Government.” ( Emphasis
\nsupplied)<\/p>\n
\tFrom the above noted observations of this Court in the appeals, we
\nfind that the propriety of the Krishnan Committee report could be
\nconsidered after the receipt of the material and report from the Central
\nGovernment.   Therefore, it cannot be said that by the aforesaid order of
\nthis Court at the intermediary stage this Court in fact rejected the
\nreport of the Krishnan Committee.   On  the other hand, it was made
\nclear that such a report can be considered after submitting of the report
\nof the Central Government in compliance with the directions made by
\nthis Court, as noted herein earlier. In compliance with the directions
\nmade by this Court in its order,  a report was submitted and a further
\norder in continuance of the order dated 25th October 1994, was also
\npassed by this Court in the aforesaid appeals reported in Akhil Bharat
\nGoseva Sangh & Ors.  Vs.  State of A.P. & Ors.  [1997 (3) SCC 707].
\nFrom this order, it appears that the Central Government had
\nconstituted an inter-Ministerial committee headed by the Joint
\nSecretary, Ministry of Food Processing Industry and three other
\nMembers.   The committee in its report made the following conclusions
\nand suggestions:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tWith regard to the pollution of air and water the
\nsuggestions and recommendations made by the
\nKrishnan Committee as well as the expert opinion
\ncontained in it were good and acceptable.  The
\nGovernment of India in the Ministry of Environment and
\nForests have already accepted the same and the steps
\nto implement have already been taken.   The
\nEnvironment Audit Report along with the
\nEnvironmental Management Plan prepared by the
\nCompany were acceptable.  However, regular monitoring
\nof pollution of air and water need to be continued by the
\nCompany itself as well as periodic checking by the
\nAndhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board.
\n(Emphasis supplied)\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThe Krishnan Committee’s assumption and
\napprehensions on depletion of cattle due to
\nestablishment of M\/s Al-Kabeer’s slaughter house are
\nnot based on correct scientific analysis and adequate
\nreasoning, and therefore, are not acceptable.   From the
\nfacts and analysis it is obvious that amongst bovine
\nanimals, the project of M\/s. Al-Kabeer is to utilize only
\nthe unproductive buffaloes and not cow and its progeny.
\nIn fact, adequate number of unproductive buffaloes
\nwere available for use in the slaughter house and other
\nslaughter houses in Andhra Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tThe Krishnan Committee’s suggestion of State
\nGovernment taking over M\/s Al-Kabeer slaughter house
\nfor supply of meat for domestic requirement had gone
\ncontrary to the objective of giving permission for setting
\nup of abattoir by M\/s. Al-Kabeer, as well as Government
\nof India’s programme for increase of export of meat and
\nmeat products.   There is, however, need for
\nmodernizing the existing abattoirs in the State for which
\nthe State Government may take appropriate steps
\nseparately.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tThe  suggestion of Krishnan Committee of the Company
\nundertaking effective programmes to raise feed cattle for
\nmeeting 50% requirement of the abattoir was not
\npracticable and therefore, not acceptable.   However, as
\nper the terms of the licence, the Company should
\nprepare a plan in consultation with the State
\nGovernment and take up its implementation in
\nconjunction with the State Government for promoting
\nbetter animal husbandry practices.\n<\/p>\n
\tNumber of petitions were filed by the appellants in the appeals
\nchallenging the report and finally this Court by its order dated  12th
\nMarch 1997 (reported in 1997 (3) SCC 707 ) made the following
\nobservations :\n<\/p>\n
“There is good amount of substance in the
\nsubmissions of the learned counsel for the
\nappellants.  The statistics which constitute the
\nbasis of this Report submitted by the Government
\nof India are not really relevant to the issue before
\nus.   As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel
\nfor the appellants,  Al-Kabeer started functioning
\nonly in April 1993 and the effects and impact of its
\nfunctioning will be known only if one studies the
\nfigures of availability and\/or depletion of buffalo
\npopulation over a period of one or two years after
\nAl- Kabeer has started functioning.   Merely
\nshowing that there has been a marginal increase in
\nbuffalo population between 1987 and 1993 is
\nneither here nor there.   Even if it is assumed that
\nthe 1993 figures refer to the figures up to
\nSeptember-October 1993, that will take only six
\nmonths of working of Al- Kabeer. The proper
\nimpact of working of Al-Kabeer on the depletion of
\ncattle, if any,  would be known only if one takes
\ninto consideration the census figures of cattle in
\nTelangana region or in the areas contiguous to
\nMedak District ( where the said unit is located), as
\nthe case may be, after at least two years of working
\nof Al-Kabeer.   In short, the position obtaining after
\nApril 1995 would alone give a correct picture.  We
\ncannot also reject the contention of the learned
\ncounsel for the appellants that the Government of
\nIndia’s Report is influenced to a considerable extent
\nby the Report of Shri Yogi Reddy, the then Director
\nof Animal Husbandry, Government of Andhra
\nPradesh, whose Report has been termed as
\n“unauthorized” by the Special Secretary to the
\nGovernment of Andhra Pradesh and thus disowned
\nby the Government.   Even according to the
\nGovernment of India’s Report, the requirement of
\nAl-Kabeer is 1.5 to 2.0 lakh buffaloes every year,
\nwhich is not an insubstantial figure.   We must also
\ntake into consideration what the appellants’
\ncounsel call the inherent contradiction between the
\nstandard and quality of beef required for export
\nand the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh
\nProhibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal
\nPreservation Act, 1977 and the effect of the
\ndecisions of this Court, which leave only old and
\ninfirm buffaloes for slaughter.  We, therefore, think
\nit appropriate that the Government of India should
\nbe called upon to send a fresh report after studying
\nthe impact and effect of the working of  Al-Kabeer
\nupon the buffalo population of the Telangana
\nregion of Andhra Pradesh and also of the areas
\nadjacent to Al- Kabeer, two years after the
\ncommencement of the operations by Al-Kabeer.   It
\nis not possible for us to pass any final orders on
\nthe basis of the Report now submitted, which as
\nstated above, is based upon the statistics\/census
\nfigures of cattle population including buffalo
\npopulation for the period 1987 to 1993.\n<\/p>\n
Accordingly, we call upon the Central Government
\nto submit a fresh report in the light of the
\nobservations made herein within six months.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn the aforesaid order, an interim order was passed saying
\nthat with effect from 1st April 1997 the company shall function at half of
\nthe installed capacity and not its full installed capacity and the appeals
\nwere directed to be listed after 6 months.\n<\/p>\n
\tPursuant to the order of this Court in the year 1997, a report was
\nfiled by the Central Government.   In the direction made by this Court
\nin 1997, this Court observed that the data starting from two years after
\nthe functioning of the Al-Kabeer abattoir (company ) would give the
\ncorrect picture of its effect on live stock population in the surrounding
\nareas and directed  the Central Government to file the same.   In the
\nreport filed by the Central Government data has been analysed through
\na comparison between a four year period immediately preceding the
\noperation of the abattoir and four year period immediately after the
\nfunctioning of the abattoir i.e. data between 1989-90 to 1992-93 was
\ncompared with data between 1993-94 to 1996-97.   The data was
\ncompared by averaging the population of four year blocks before and
\nafter working of the abattoir.\n<\/p>\n
      After making the comparison, the following has been reported:
\n(1)\tIt is young stock and females over 3 years that had contributed to
\nthe sustenance of buffalo population.   The increase in female and
\nyoung stock clearly indicates that the functioning of the Al-Kabeer
\nAbattoir has not resulted in depletion of buffalo population in
\nTelangana region.   There exists adequate potential of buffalo
\npopulation in these areas to sustain the demand from different sources
\nfor the buffaloes including that of Al-Kabeer abattoir.
\n(2)\tIncreases in buffalo population, especially in the latest year i.e.
\n1996-97, do not substantiate any consistent decline in buffalo
\npopulation as a result of functioning of the Al-Kabeer abattoir
\n(company).\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tThough there is a decrease in cattle population,  that may not be
\nrelated to the functioning of the Al-Kabeer, as beef from cattle is
\nbanned from export.\n<\/p>\n
\tSubsequently, in the year  1999 census data on cattle population
\nof Andhra Pradesh namely 16th live stock census was submitted before
\nthis Court.   As per the live stock census conducted, the total live stock
\npopulation in the Andhra Pradesh State was calculated at 357.87 lakhs
\nin 1999 with an increase of 8.7% over that of 1993 census.  This
\nincrease was stated to be mainly due to the significant increase in
\nbovine population to the extent of 22%.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn behalf of the appellants, the first question that was raised and
\nnot decided by this Court in its earlier orders but kept to be decided at
\nthe final stage of the appeals,  was whether Al-Kabeer Unit (company)
\nhas been established in violation of location requirement, as mentioned
\nin the LOI of the Central Government for issuance of industrial licence
\nto it.   According to the appellants, since the location of Al-Kabeer is in
\nviolation of location requirement, as mentioned in the LOI of the Central
\nGovernment and also the prohibition zone imposed by the State
\nGovernment, and as Al-Kabeer (Company) is located within 13 K.M.
\nfrom the urban limit of Hyderabad city, it must be held that Al-Kabeer
\n(Company) must close down its abattoir. It was also urged that the
\nAndhra Pradesh Government, having issued a General Order banning
\nlocation of industries in Medak District, where the unit of the Company
\nwas located, had wrongly issued permission to the company to run its
\nabattoir and in that view of the matter the company must be directed to
\nshut down its abattoir and the licence issued to it must be cancelled.
\n\tThis submission was hotly contested by the learned counsel
\nappearing for Al-Kabeer (Company).   We have carefully examined the
\nsubmissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
\nrecords and the findings of the High Court regarding location
\nrequirement, as indicated in the LOI of the Central Government and the
\nGeneral Order of the State Government.   In our view, this submission
\nof the appellants, at this stage, cannot be accepted.   At the outset, we
\nmay say that this question was not seriously argued by the learned
\ncounsel of the appellants before us,  although in the written
\nsubmissions filed by them,  this question was tentatively raised.  Since
\na submission was made on this account, we feel it appropriate to deal
\nwith this question.  Before we deal with this question in detail, we may
\nnote that  for the first time in this Court the appellants have alleged the
\nfact that the Al-Kabeer unit (company) is located within 13 km. from the
\nstandard urban limits of the city of Hyderabad which falls within the
\nprohibited zone.\n<\/p>\n
\t   Even assuming, distance prohibition would be applicable to the
\ncase of Al-Kabeer (company), we are still of the view that this distance
\nprohibition may not stand in the way of Al-Kabeer from getting an
\nindustrial licence for the purpose of setting up the abattoir at the site in
\nquestion.\tIt is an admitted fact that in the application for grant of
\nlicence, Al-Kabeer (the Company), had stated the exact location where
\nthey were going to set up the abattoir, that is to say in Rudraram
\nVillage in the District of Medak of the State of Andhra Pradesh. When
\nthis application was processed by the Central Government, a thorough
\nenquiry must have been made by it and only thereafter industrial
\nlicence was issued to the Company.   It is true that before issuance of
\nlicence, LOI was issued by the Central Government only wherein, this
\nlocation requirement was stated in a printed form.   It is an admitted
\nposition that the Central Government did not make any query from the
\ncompany about the distance between Rudraram Village, where the site
\nis located, and the urban limits of the city of Hyderabad.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn a bare perusal of Section 11 of the IDR Act, it is evident that no
\nperson or authority shall, after the commencement of the Act, establish
\nany industrial undertaking except in accordance with the licence issued
\nin that behalf by the Central Government.  That is to say, an embargo
\nhas been imposed on any person or authority to establish any new
\nindustrial undertaking before obtaining a licence from the Central
\nGovernment. Subsection 2 of section 11 however says that a licence or
\na permission under Sub-section 1 to establish a new industrial
\nundertaking may contain such conditions including condition as to the
\nlocation of the undertaking as the Central Government may deem fit to
\nimpose in accordance with the Rules. This subsection 2 of Section 11
\nempowers the Central Government to impose conditions on the person
\nor the authority as to the location of the undertaking. In our view,
\nsubsection 2 of Section 11 of the Act by which conditions can be
\nimposed as to the location of the undertaking by the Central
\nGovernment is only directory and it would be open to the Central
\nGovernment to issue licence without giving any conditions to the
\ncompany as to the location of the undertaking. It is significant to note
\nthat the legislature in sub-section 2 of Section 11 has used the word
\n‘may’.\n<\/p>\n
\tBy issuing the Industrial licence to the Company, even after
\nknowing the proposed location of the unit, it must be said that the
\nCentral Government waived the location requirements, as mentioned in
\nits LOI with regard to this unit.\n<\/p>\n
\tEconomic liberalization was made by the Central Govt. on 25th of
\nJuly, 1991 and following the said policy,  the Government of Andhra
\nPradesh also issued a Notification on 3rd February 1992 which was
\nissued as a follow up action of the Notification of the Central
\nGovernment dated 25th July 1991 under which permission\/license was
\nrequired for industries located within 25 km from the periphery of
\nstandard urban area.   The Notification dated 3rd February 1992 of the
\nState Government specified areas which would fall within or outside 25
\nkm. from the periphery of the standard urban area in order to enable
\nthe entrepreneurs to take appropriate action. According to the
\nappellants, the company is located within Rudraram village which is a
\nprohibited zone from the periphery of the city of Hyderabad and
\ntherefore the company,  in terms of the Industrial policy of the State
\nGovernment, was not entitled to get an industrial licence to run the
\nslaughter house. Clause (2) of Paragraph 3 of  the Notification specified
\nthe list of villages falling within the prohibited zone for which, location
\napproval from the Central Government would be necessary except for
\nnon-polluting industries such as electronics, computer software and
\nprinting industries.    In the present case, the activity of the company
\ndoes not fall in the category of non-polluting industries. However, this
\nnotification contains two lists.   One list is A and the other is B.  List A
\nspecified all  the villages within the standard urban area of Hyderabad.
\nPatancheru which falls within Medak District and is within the
\ncomputation of 25 km. from the periphery of the standard urban area of
\nHyderabad falls under list B.    Therefore, in terms of the distance  there
\nwas requirement of obtaining an industrial licence by virtue of the
\nNotification dated 3rd February 1992 of the State Government. In view of
\nthe admitted fact that industrial licence was granted by the Central
\nGovt. on 11.11.1992 and permission to run the slaughter house was
\nalso granted by the State Government on the basis of the Industrial
\npolicy of the State Govt. of 3rd February, 1992, we are unable to hold
\nthat distance prohibition could be considered to be a ground either for
\ncancellation of the industrial licence or for closing down the unit.\n<\/p>\n
   \tApart from that, we may keep it in mind that in pursuance of the
\nLOI granted by the Central Government and the various permissions
\ngranted by the State Government and other authorities, the company
\ncommenced construction of its factory in 1989.   It should also keep in
\nmind that before commencing its construction the following
\npermissions\/No Objection Certificates were taken by the Company:\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tNo Objection Certificate for site clearance from
\nAPPCB.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tNo Objection Certificate from the Director of
\nAnimal Husbandry, A.P.\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tLetter of Intent from Ministry of Industry, Govt.
\nof India.\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tTwo NOCs. from the Gram Panchayat to locate
\nthe factory as well as commence construction.\n<\/p>\n
(e)\tPermission  from Medical and Health
\nDepartment, A.P.\n<\/p>\n
(f)\tPermission from the Director of Town and
\nCountry Planning.\n<\/p>\n
(g)\tPermission from Director of Industries, A.P.\n<\/p>\n
(h)\tNOCs. from National Airport Authority,
\nHyderabad and Madras.\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tNOC from AIR Headquarters, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt also appears from the record that the Industrial licence was
\ngranted by the Central Government on the strong recommendation of
\nthe State Government.   The unit commenced production in April 1993
\nafter dismissal of a batch of Writ Petitions challenging the permissions
\ngranted by various authorities to commence production including that
\nof the APPCB.   The unit achieved its full production in December 1993
\nand since then it is earning valuable and substantial foreign exchange
\nfor our country.  Above all, the question on location, as noted herein
\nearlier, was neither raised seriously before the High Court nor before
\nus. It must also be noted that, in this regard various State authorities
\nhad granted permissions for the abattoir to be constructed and function
\nat the selected site and production has been continuing for the last 10
\nto 15 years. That apart, the question on location requirement is always
\na question of fact which cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage
\nbefore us. However, we keep it open to the Central Government and the
\nState Government to consider the distance prohibition as indicated in
\nthe LOI and the Notification and General Order of the State Government
\nfor the purpose of shifting the site to   some other alternative place
\nwhich would satisfy the location conditions. Subject to the above, this
\nquestion is answered in favour of the Al-Kabeer (company).\n<\/p>\n
\tThe next question that was urged by the learned counsel for the
\nappellant before us which needs to be decided is whether  Al-Kabeer
\n(company) operates in violation of Environmental Acts and Rules.
\nAccording to the appellants,     no study has been made of  the
\nprevailing environment and the impact of Al-Kabeer on it.   Therefore, it
\nwas contended that the precautionary principle has been ignored by the
\nauthority before granting permission to Al-Kabeer to run the slaughter
\nhouse.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel appearing on behalf of Satyavani in C.A. No.
\n3967 of 1994 contended that APPCB by its consent order dated 21st
\nDecember 1993 allowed limit for B.O.D. of 100 mg\/Lit. whereas the
\nmaximum permissible limit specified in the Environment Protection
\nRules, 1986 was 30 mg.\/Lit (Rule 3, Schedule 1, Entry 50B).
\nAccording to the learned counsel appearing for Satyavani the limit for
\nsuspended solids allowed   by APPCB of 100 mg\/Lit was in excess of
\nlimit of 50 mg\/Lit. allowed in Rule 3, Schedule 1, Entry 50B of the
\nEnvironment Protection Rules, 1986.   Therefore, it was contended that
\nthe consent of APPCB was in violation of the Act and Rules, and
\naccordingly it must be quashed.   It was also contended on behalf of
\nSatyavani that since the samples collected on 6th August 1994 from Al-
\nKabeer  show that its  B.O.D.  in fact reached 150 mg\/Lit. which was
\nmuch beyond the permitted limit of 30 mg.\/Lit. and its suspended solid
\ndischarge was recorded at 140 mg\/Lit. which was much beyond the
\npermitted 50 mg.\/Lit., the question of giving consent to Al-Kabeer by
\nthe authorities could not arise at all as it had clearly violated the
\nmaximum permissible limit specified in the   Environment Protection
\nRules, 1986.  Accordingly, permission granted should be withdrawn.
\nThese submissions were strongly disputed by the learned counsel for
\nAl-Kabeer (company).\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom a careful consideration of the rival submissions of the
\nparties on the question of environmental pollution, we find that this
\nquestion was not seriously argued by the appellants during the course
\nof hearing that the company had violated the norms under Environment
\nProtection Rules, 1986. Thus we may not permit the appellant to raise
\nthis question before us.   However, as environmental pollution has now
\nbecome a public nuisance, we thought it fit to go into this question and
\ndecide the same.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have carefully examined the rival submissions made before us
\nby the learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question.
\n\tFrom the record it appears that the recommendations regarding
\nenvironment made by Krishnan Committee so far as the abattoir is
\nconcerned, were accepted by the Central Government as would be
\nevident from this Court’s order dated 12th March, 1997. It also appears
\nfrom the record that Al-Kabeer Company had invested huge amount for
\ninstallation of elaborate anti-pollution equipment, and operates the
\nsame with consent obtained from APPCB. It is true that the standards
\nprescribed by APPCB for Al-Kabeer while issuing its consent for
\nslaughtering operation to begin,  were indeed in violation of the
\nEnvironment Protection Rules in so far as they prescribe a lower
\nstandard than was mandated by the aforesaid Rules. Under Rule 3 of
\nthe Rules, the State Boards are permitted to prescribe higher standards
\nthan those mentioned in the Rules but are not permitted to lower the
\nstandard.   Considering the fact that the permission to operate the
\nabattoir was granted by the APPCB, the State Government and also by
\nvarious authorities of the State 10 to 15 years back and considering the
\nfact that Al-Kabeer had installed elaborate anti-pollution equipment by
\ninvesting huge amount, we are of the view that Al-Kabeer must be
\ndirected to comply with the Environment Protection Rules by lowering
\ndown the pollution levels at the abattoir to permissible limits, rather
\nthan to direct closure of the abattoir of the company. It also appears
\nthat the samples which were collected by the Department of Water and
\nWaste Water Examination, Institute of Preventive Medicine,
\nNarayanguda, Hyderabad from Al-Kabeer’s abattoir indicated violation
\nof the standards prescribed under Environment Protection Rules.
\nThough Al-Kabeer has installed elaborate anti-pollution equipment, it
\nwould be of no consequence if such equipment is in reality not bringing
\ndown the level of pollution below permissible limits.  However, it cannot
\nbe overlooked that Al-Kabeer is continuing its operation for more than
\n10 years without any objection from the APPCB. Therefore, considering
\nall the circumstances, we are of the view that directly ordering closure
\nof Al-Kabeer Abattoir is not called for; rather directions may be given to
\nAPPCB to rectify its consent order in accordance with the Environment
\nProtection Rules and also to direct Al-Kabeer to strictly comply with
\nthat rectified consent order and Environment Protection Rules. In the
\nevent abattoir fails to comply with such directions from the APPCB, it
\nwould be open to the authorities to direct closure of the Al-Kabeer unit.
\nWe are taking this view keeping in mind that the appellants had not
\nseriously argued, during the course of hearing before this Court, that
\nthe company had in fact violated the standards laid down in the
\nEnvironment Protection Act and Rules.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt may also be noted that in the interim judgment dated 12.3.1997
\nreported in (1997) 3 SCC 707, this Court has noted the conclusions of
\nthe Central Government Committee in paragraph 2 wherein, it has
\nrecorded that the Committee had accepted the suggestions and
\nrecommendations made by the Krishnan Committee with regard to
\npollution of air and water. It has also been noted therein that the
\nEnvironmental Audit Report and the Environmental Management Firm
\nReport along with the Environmental Management Plan prepared by the
\ncompany are acceptable. As already noted hereinearlier, the company
\nhas installed elaborate anti-pollution equipment, imported as well as
\nindigenous. The company has been operating only after obtaining
\nconsent from APPCB which is regularly renewed. Insofar as standards
\nfor discharge of effluents from slaughterhouse and meat processing are
\nconcerned, the same is prescribed under Rule 3 read with entry 50-B of
\nSchedule I of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986. In this
\nconnection Entry 50-B (b) of Schedule 1 of Environment  Protection
\nRules 1986 is relevant as it prescribes the B.O.D.,  suspended solids &
\noil and grease limits. At this juncture it is also to be noted that Ministry
\nof Environment, Government of India, by its letter dated 29th May 1995
\nfixed the standards for Al-Kabeer Exports Pvt. Ltd. at 100 B.O.D. and
\n30 B.O.D. for slaughterhouse and meat processing respectively.  As Al-
\nKabeer has been operating on the basis of the norms specified by the
\nCentral Government and considering the fact that  Al-Kabeer unit  has
\nbeen operating for more than 10 years without any objection form
\nAPPCB and  keeping in mind the economic policy of the Central
\nGovernment, we are of the view that Al-Kabeer may not be, at this
\nstage, directed to stop their operation and close the unit.   In view of our
\ndiscussion made hereinbefore, and as  APPCB reserves the right to take
\naction against Al-Kabeer for violation of the terms and conditions
\nimposed in its permission, it would  be open for APPCB to direct Al-
\nKabeer to rectify the level of pollution below prescribed limits and in the
\nevent that it is not done they may direct Al-Kabeer to close down its
\nabattoir. As noted hereinbefore, it is of course true that the prescribed
\nlimit of pollution by APPCB was in violation of the Environment
\nProtection Rules, therefore in our view, directions must be given to
\nAPPCB to rectify its consent order and directions be given by them to
\nthe abattoir to comply with that rectified consent order in accordance
\nwith Rule 3 of the Environment Protection Rules.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn this connection, two further questions had arisen in relation to
\ncompliance with environment standards maintained by Al-Kabeer,
\nwhich were raised by the appellant Shri Tukkoji, in C.A. Nos. 3964-65
\nof 1994.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe first question is whether the consent order of the APPCB was
\nvitiated because the reports of the analysts were not made available to
\nShri Tukkoji prior to the issuance of NOC. Learned counsel appearing
\nfor Shri Tukkoji contended that the consent order was in derogation of
\nthe right of Shri Tukkoji to information in violation of Article 19(1)(a) of
\nthe Constitution. According to Shri Tukkoji, he was not only entitled to
\nreceive the reports of the analysts relating to the effects of the
\nfunctioning of the abattoir but also to file objections prior to the
\nissuance of N.O.C. This contention was accepted by the learned Single
\nJudge of the High Court but was rejected by the Division Bench.   The
\nDivision Bench in the impugned judgment observed as follows-
\n” On a prima facie view of the various provisions of
\nthe Water Act and the corresponding provisions of
\nthe Air Act, in particular the provisions of sections
\n16, 17, 20 and 25 of the Water Act we are not
\ninclined to hold at this stage that a third party has
\nany right to seek information or material from the
\nState Board at or before granting of consent by it
\nunder S. 25(3) of the Water Act. It is not as if
\naggrieved party is left without a remedy. After
\nconsent  is granted any third party who feels
\naggrieved can make a complaint to the Court of a
\nFirst Class Magistrate Apart from that the State
\nBoard has ample powers to review its order
\ngranting consent by modifying or revoking any
\nexisting condition”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t( Emphasis supplied)\t<\/p>\n
\tWe do not find any reason to disagree with this view of the
\nDivision Bench of the High Court. In this connection, we examined
\nSection 25 of the Water Act in depth and, in our view, Section 25 of the
\nWater Act does not confer any right on members of the public to
\ndemand information from the APPCB prior to issuance of NOC.
\nTherefore, it cannot be held,  that the NOC  was vitiated by reason of
\nnon-disclosure of information to the appellant Tukkoji prior to its
\nissuance.\n<\/p>\n
\tThus, first question of Shri Tukkoji as argued by his learned
\ncounsel has  no merit and it is hereby rejected.  The second question
\nraised is whether the consent order was vitiated because the APPCB
\nwas improperly constituted.  It was contended on behalf of Shri Tukkoji
\nthat APPCB was not validly constituted and that the Chairman and
\nMember Secretary of APPCB did not possess the qualifications required
\nunder the Water Act, and accordingly the Board as constituted was not
\ncompetent to issue consent order. In order to answer this question it
\nwould be beneficial if we reproduce the relevant findings of the Division
\nBench which run as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“We are not unaware of the contention of counsel for
\nthe petitioners that the Pollution Control Board did
\nnot really consist of scientific experts, and that in
\nthat sense, issue of No Objection Certificate by that
\nbody may not be considered as a result of informed
\nexpert opinion. That brush can as well paint the
\nopinion of Shri H.K. Babu, Secretary, Food and
\nAgriculture, as also that of Shri R.V. Krishnan,
\nSecretary, Energy, Forest, Environment, Science and
\nTechnology in the same hues. We are informed that
\nsome, at least, of the members of the Pollution
\nControl Board was renowned scientists”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is true that Section 4(2)(a) of the Water Act requires the
\nChairman of the APPCB to be ‘a person having special knowledge or
\npractical experience in respect of  matters relating to environmental
\nprotection or a person having knowledge and experience in
\nadministering institutions dealing with matters aforesaid, to be
\nnominated by the State Government’.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 4(2)(f) of the Act requires the Member Secretary to possess
\n“qualifications, knowledge and experience of scientific, engineering or
\nmanagement aspects of pollution control.”\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom the record, it appears that at the relevant time the Chairman
\nand the Member Secretary of the APPCB did not possess these
\nstatutorily required qualifications. The observation of the High Court in
\nthe judgment that some of the members of the APPCB were scientific
\nexperts, does not address this specific breach of the statutory
\nrequirement. In this connection, we, however, need  to look into the
\nprovisions under Section 11 of the Water Act, which provides in terms
\nthat “No act or proceeding of a Board or any committee thereof shall be
\ncalled in question on the ground merely of the existence of any vacancy
\nin or any defect in the constitution of, the Board or such committee, as
\nthe case may be.”  Therefore,  applying Section 11 of the Act which
\nclearly provides that no act or proceeding of APPCB or any committee
\nthereof shall be called in question, it can safely be concluded that even
\nif there was some defect in the composition of the APPCB, that would
\nnot invalidate the consent order issued by it.
\n\tLet us now come back to the most important question that needs
\nto be decided in these appeals, which is about the issue of cattle
\ndepletion due to functioning of the Al-Kabeer abattoir. On this question,
\nthe appellant in C.A. No.3966\/1994 advanced the following
\nsubmissions :-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tSince the Al-Kabeer project involves
\nslaughtering of prohibited cattle, which can be
\nstatistically shown to be inevitable, and is also
\nevidenced on video the Govt. has a
\nconstitutional duty under the second part of
\nArt.48 of the Constitution to prevent such
\nslaughter as well as a duty to enforce the A.P.\n<\/p>\n
Preservation of Cow Slaughter and Animal
\nPreservation Act, 1977.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\t The slaughter rate of Al-Kabeer exceeds the
\nrenewal rate as would be evident from the
\nreports submitted by the authorities before the
\nHigh Court as well as before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe appellant Satyavani in C.A. 3967\/1994 made the
\nfollowing submissions:\n<\/p>\n
a.\tThe report of the Central Govt. submitted on 12.9.1997 was
\nmisleading, because it had averaged, and then compared the
\nfigures for buffalo population in the four years before and
\nafter Al-Kabeer was set up, which disguises the fact that a
\ndecline in buffalo population had occurred subsequent to this
\nsetup. Further, the same persons responsible for preparing
\nthe earlier Govt. report of 1994- which was held to be
\nmisleading by this Court in its order dated 12.3.1997- were
\nagain involved in preparation of this report.
\nb.\tThe abattoir stopped taking animals from its hinterland
\nsubsequent to the Court’s order of 12.3.1997, and instead
\nbegan importing animals from other States. Thus, the figures
\nof 2003 Livestock Census are not relevant to the issue at
\nhand, and the effect of the abattoir on buffalo depletion can
\nonly be judged on the basis of statistics of approximately two
\nyears after its commencement- as observed by this Court in
\nits order dated 25.10.1994. Further, the 2003 Census itself
\nshows a decrease in buffalo population in adjoining States of
\nKarnataka and Maharashtra, from 1999 to 2003- indicating
\nthe effect the abattoir has had, through its importation of
\nbuffaloes from these States. Moreover, the figures in the 2003
\nLivestock Census show abnormal and unrealistic growth of
\ncattle population in districts of AP, which can not be
\naccepted.\n<\/p>\n
c.\tThe subsequent report of the Central Govt. dated 23.12.2003
\nitself vindicates the claim that cattle depletion has occurred
\ndue to Al-Kabeer’s operations.\n<\/p>\n
d.\tThis depletion is not in relation to old and useless cattle, as
\nAl-Kabeer necessarily must slaughter useful animals, for
\nexport, as pointed out by the Krishnan Committee Report.
\nThere are also no sufficient number of useless animals to
\nmeet its requirement of 1.5 to 2 lakh buffaloes per year, as is
\nevident from the figures of successive census carried out by
\nthe Andhra Pradesh Directorate of Economics and Statistics.
\nFurther, the monitoring of Al-Kabeer, for compliance with the
\nAndhra Pradesh Animal Preservation Act, is not effective, as
\nreported by Dr. Jitendra Reddy, Special Officer, Govt. of A.P.
\nSuch unrestricted slaughtering of useful animals will worsen
\nthe already existing dung shortage in Andhra Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh in C.A. No. 3968\/1994
\nmade the following submissions:\n<\/p>\n
a)\tThe Central Govt. report on buffalo population, as
\nwell as the 16th Quinquennial census figures (1999)
\nof the Bureau of Economics and Statistics contains
\ngross inconsistencies.\n<\/p>\n
b)\tThe census was not carried out comprehensively, nor
\ndoes it provide figures as to slaughter of buffaloes
\nabove 10 years, which are still useful.\n<\/p>\n
c)\tThe 17th Quinquennial census (2003) is only
\nprovisional in nature, and does not categorize cattle
\nbased on age and use- hence it cannot be relied on by
\nthe Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
d)\tThe census figures of 1999 and 2003 indicate growth
\nrates which are inconsistent with the extent of cattle
\nslaughter.\n<\/p>\n
e)\tAl-Kabeer cannot claim that it has a fundamental
\nfreedom to conduct a trade or business which
\nviolates the Fundamental Duty in Article 51A(g) of the
\nConstitution to have compassion for living creatures,
\nand is also destructive of the environment- this
\nfollows from the rule of harmonious construction.\n<\/p>\n
f)\tIn any case, the freedom in Article 19(1)(g) of the
\nConstitution cannot be permitted to be exercised if it
\nis not in the interests of  the general public.  The
\nslaughter of livestock in response to export demand
\ncreates acute scarcity of animals which will increase
\nprices of milk, ghee, meat and other products.
\nFurther, such export-oriented slaughter-houses
\ninduce owners of animals to sell them despite their
\nutility as milch or draught cattle. Depletion of cattle
\nwealth also leads to loss of benefits from dung output
\nof cattle, which is its most useful contribution. The
\nAl- Kabeer project also leads to a net loss of
\nemployment, as more than one lakh persons are
\nemployed in activities in relation to cattle, besides
\ndepriving the nation of the benefits of live cattle.
\nThese effects constitute  violation of Art. 21 of the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
    (g) The Al-Kabeer project is operating in violation of
\nvarious State animal preservation laws, as it has stated
\nthat it imports 70 percent of its buffalo requirement
\nfrom other States, as well as the Prevention of Cruelty to
\nAnimals Act, 1960.\n<\/p>\n
h)\tAl-Kabeer cannot rely on the 1958 Quareshi’s
\njudgment, as that case concerned the rights of
\nindividual butchers, not businesses setup to earn
\nprofits from export. Moreover, the crux of that
\njudgment, striking down the total ban on
\nslaughter of old cattle, was scarcity of fodder
\nresources- which no longer exists. Finally, the
\nconcept of ‘usefulness’ of cattle was placed before
\nthe Court in 1958 in only a narrow sense (milk,
\nbreeding and draught services) and the utility of
\ndung was not considered.\n<\/p>\n
\tAll these submissions of the appellants, as noted hereinbefore,
\nwere contested by Al-Kabeer in C.A.No.3967 of 1994 and made the
\nfollowing reply : –\n<\/p>\n
a.\tThe appellants had relied on a Central Govt. report
\ndated 23.12.2003, which is based on 1999 census
\nfigures, to prove cattle depletion. But in fact, this
\nreport indicates increase in buffalo population in
\nAndhra Pradesh, despite operation of the Al- Kabeer
\nproject.\n<\/p>\n
b.\tThere are sufficient number of useless buffaloes to
\nmeet Al- Kabeer’s capacity, if figures over a year, and
\nnot simply a given day, are taken into account. In one
\nyear, 9. 4 lakh useless buffaloes are available in
\nAndhra Pradesh, much more than the requirement of
\nAl-Kabeer.\n<\/p>\n
c.\tThe appellants had mistakenly inferred that useful
\nbuffaloes are being slaughtered by Al-Kabeer but the
\nreport shows that, since milk production has
\nincreased along with meat export, therefore young
\nand productive animals are not being slaughtered.\n<\/p>\n
\tFurther Al-Kabeer  in C.A. No. 3968\/1994 made the following
\nreply :-\n<\/p>\n
a.\tThe compliance by Al-Kabeer with the Andhra Pradesh  Animal
\nPreservation Act is monitored by the officials deputed by the
\nDirector, Animal Husbandry.\n<\/p>\n
b.\tThe report of the Expert Committee of the Central Govt. filed on
\n15.9.1997, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 12.3.1997,
\nconcluded that there would be no depletion effect on livestock in
\nAndhra Pradesh, as a result of continuance of Al-Kabeer in full
\ncapacity. The method used in the report of relying on cattle
\npopulation figures in block periods of four years before and after
\ncommencement of operations of Al-Kabeer was justified. The
\n16th and 17th Quinquennial Census figures also indicate that
\nthere has been an increase in the buffalo population in
\nTelangana region, not a decline. Although reports have been
\nchallenged by the appellant, but it has now become a settled
\nlaw that the findings made in such reports are not open to
\nchallenge unless it is shown that such findings are perverse,
\narbitrary and any prudent person cannot reach to such
\nfindings.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondent APEDA (Agricultural and Processed Food Exports
\nDevelopment Authority) in C.A. No. 3968\/1994 supported the case of
\nabattoir and in support thereof made the following submissions :\n<\/p>\n
a.\tThe  appellants had not even made the case that Al-Kabeer is
\nviolating any of the conditions imposed on it for slaughter of
\nbuffalo.\n<\/p>\n
b.\tThe claim of the appellants that cattle population is declining on
\naccount of Al- Kabeer’s operation is based on a wrong approach,
\nbecause the issue is not whether the total population is decreasing
\nor not, but whether the population of healthy livestock is
\ndecreasing. The census figures confirm that there has been no
\nsuch depletion due to Al-Kabeer’s operation.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs noted hereinearlier, we have not only carefully examined the
\nKrishnan Committee report but also the other reports submitted by the
\nCentral Government in pursuance of the directions made by this Court
\nin its earlier orders in 1994 and 1997.   On cattle depletion the
\nKrishnan Committee noted that the operation of Al-Kabeer would
\nadversely affect the cattle population in and around the region unless
\n50% of the demand of the abattoir was met through breeding of cattle
\nby Al-Kabeer itself.   Before we go into this question we may note that
\nthe A.P. Act was enacted in the year 1977 (Act 11 of 1977).   By this
\nAct,  the Legislature has regulated the slaughter of all bovine animals
\nincluding buffaloes.   Under section 6(1) no animal is allowed to be
\nslaughtered unless a certificate in writing from the competent authority
\nis obtained certifying that the animal is fit for slaughter.   Sub-section
\n(2) of Section 6 of the Act prohibits slaughtering of  animals unless the
\ncompetent authority grants a certificate in respect of an animal that it
\nis not likely to become economical for the purpose of breeding, milching
\nor draught.   After carefully reading the conditions for obtaining a
\npermission from the competent authority to slaughter an animal, we
\nfind that slaughtering an animal requires the following:\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tOnly old and useless buffaloes can be slaughtered.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tBuffaloes fit for milching, breeding or draught cannot be
\nslaughtered.\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tCow and its progeny including calves of cows and calves of
\nbuffaloes cannot be slaughtered.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn order to see whether those conditions are fulfilled by Al-Kabeer,
\nthe Director, Animal Husbandry of State of Andhra Pradesh has
\ndeputed necessary officials of the rank of Veterinary Asstt. Surgeons to
\nthe plant of the company to monitor and undertake anti-mortem and
\npost-mortem examinations and to implement the provisions of the Act.
\n\tAs noted hereinearlier,  in the interim direction made by this Court
\nin these appeals on 12th March 1997 ( 1997 (3) SCC 707 ),  this Court
\ndirected the Central Govt. to give a report after studying the impact and
\neffect of the working of Al-Kabeer upon the buffalo population of the
\nTelangana Region of Andhra Pradesh and also of the areas adjacent to
\nAl-Kabeer, two years after the commencement of the operations by Al-
\nKabeer.   The Central Government in pursuance of the said direction
\nmade on 12th March 1997 filed a fresh report on 15th September 1997.
\nFrom a reading of the said report, it appears to us that the expert
\ncommittee of the Central Govt. had examined all issues, as directed by
\nthis Court in its judgment dated 12th March 1997.   This considered
\nopinion in the said report is as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“on the examination of all observations
\nmentioned in the judgment dated 12.3.1997 the
\ncommittee is of the opinion that there would not be
\nany depletion effect on live stock population
\nparticularly buffaloe, sheep and goat in Medak and
\ncontiguous districts, Telangana region or in the
\nState of Andhra Pradesh as a result of continuance
\nof Al-Kabeer at the full capacity utilization.”
\n(Emphasis supplied).\n<\/p>\n
\tIn support of this report the State Govt. also filed an affidavit on
\n15th November 1997 (See page 17 of the counter affidavit of Al-Kabeer
\nExports to I.A. No.10-14\/1997) wherein the State Government   noted
\nthat   the report of the Central Govt. was based on the relevant data
\nand the conclusions reached by the expert committee in its report were
\nnot improper.   In paragraph 20 of the said affidavit, it has been stated
\nthat the State Govt. had deputed five veterinary Asstt. Surgeons to
\nsupervise the slaughtering work at the site of Al-Kabeer and only
\nthereafter the State Govt. issued anti-mortem and post-mortem
\ncertificates.    From the record, it is also evident that the Central Govt.
\nhad filed yet another report prepared by an Expert committee along
\nwith an affidavit dated 6th July 1998 .  This affidavit and report were
\nfiled pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 13th April 1998
\ndirecting the Central Govt. and the state of Andhra Pradesh to file
\naffidavits not only responding to the appellant’s  application for
\nmodification  but also with regard to the cattle population of Andhra
\nPradesh in general and Telangana zone in particular.   The report states
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The increase is much higher in Telangana
\nregion as compared to Andhra & Rayalaseema
\nduring the four year period of Al-Kabeer working
\nand this has clearly indicated that Al-Kabeer
\nworking has no adverse impact on the buffalo
\npopulation in Telangana region on in Medal area
\nwhere the abattoir is located.”\n<\/p>\n
The detailed report at yet another place states:
\n\t“A comparison of the estimated population of
\nbuffaloes in milk during the four year period before
\nworking of Al-Kabeer abattoir and after working of
\nAl-Kabeer abattoir indicates that similar to milch
\nbuffaloes, population of buffaloes in milk also
\nincreased during the four year period after working
\nof Al-Kabeer abattoir.   The increase is 23.40
\npercent in Medak and contiguous districts, 24.33
\npercent in Telangana and 17.17 percent in Andhra
\n& Rayalaseema.   An overall increase  of 19.61
\npercent in the Andhra Pradesh State is observed.
\nThis clearly indicates that productive buffaloes are
\nnot slaughtered in Al-Kabeer abattoir as stated by
\nthe appellant and there would not be depletion of
\nbuffalo population as a result of Al-Kabeer
\nfunctioning.”\n<\/p>\n
In conclusion the report states:\n<\/p>\n
         From the above it could be inferred that Al-\n<\/p>\n
Kabeer working at full capacity does not result in
\nbuffalo population either in any area of Andhra
\nPradesh or in the country”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t( Emphasis supplied )<\/p>\n
\tOn behalf of the appellant, it was argued that in the Central Govt.
\nreport figures\/statistics were misleading inasmuch as it had taken an
\naverage of four years before the commencement of operations of Al-
\nKabeer and again of four year figures after the commencement of
\noperations by  Al-Kabeer.   According to the appellants,  the correct way
\nwas to see the figures immediately preceding the start of operations by
\nAl-Kabeer and thereafter to see the figures two years after
\ncommencement of operation of  Al-Kabeer.   In our view, this
\nsubmission is fallacious and cannot be accepted.   The committee of the
\nCentral Govt. has correctly taken the figures of a block period of four
\nyears before commencement of operations and again figures of a block
\nperiod of four years after commencement of operations by Al-Kabeer.
\nThis is in view of the fact that statistics\/figures of one particular year
\ncannot represent or give a proper picture as the number of
\nanimals\/buffaloes\/cattle can very well vary due to natural calamities
\nlarge scale migration in view of urbanization etc.   We do not find any
\nthing to say that the committee of the Central Govt. had gone wrong by
\nproceeding on that basis and it was justified to take a block period of
\nfour years which would certainly  indicate the trend or show whether
\nthere was any steep or persistent decline after the commencement of
\noperations of Al-Kabeer.   We must not forget that this Court has also
\nseen  that there is no sharp decline or consistent reduction in the
\nnumber of useful buffaloes year after year after the commencement of
\noperations of Al-Kabeer.   The figures\/statistics as given by the Central
\nGovt. in its report dated 15.9.1997 as well as the 16th Quinquennial and
\n17th Quinquennial Census would clearly indicate that there is an
\nincrease in the number of buffaloes and there is no reduction or decline
\nmuch less a steep decline in the number of buffaloes in the Telangana
\nregion, as argued by the appellant. The district-wise comparison for
\nTelangana between the census of 1999 and 2003 as would be evident
\nfrom the report is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\tDistrict  \t\t16th Census\t1999\t\t17th Census 2003\t\n\n\tMahaboobnagar\t\t360749\t\t\t356269 (-)\n\t\n\tRangareddy\t\t\t211044\t\t\t272342 (+)\n\n\tHyderabad\t\t\t8870\t\t\t\t31400 (+)\n\n\tMedak\t\t\t       313988\t\t\t367350 (+)\n\n\tNizamabad\t\t       267846\t\t\t333989 (+)\n\n\tAdilabad\t\t\t       208823\t\t\t301014 (+)\n\n\tKarimnagar\t\t      448896\t\t\t441361 (-)\n\n\tWarangal\t\t\t      438324\t\t\t486779 (+)\n\n\tKhhammam\t\t      498537\t\t\t565810 (+)\n\n\tNalgonda\t\t\t622827\t\t\t592271 (-)\n\n\t\n\t\n\n\t\t\t\tPERCENTAGE VARIATION\n\n\t\n\tYear\t\t\t\tA.P.State\t\tTelangana Region\n\n\t1999  census  (over\t+ 5.3%\t\t+4.6%\n\n1993 census\n\n\n\t2003\t  census   (over\t+ 10.35%\t\t+ 10.91%\n\n1999\t  census\n\n\t\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe appellant sought to challenge the veracity and correctness of
\nthe figures given in the report of the Central Govt. as well as in the
\nQuinquennial census.   In our view, this submission is devoid of merit.
\nIt is now well-settled by various decisions of this Court that the findings
\nof expert bodies in technical and scientific matters would not ordinarily
\nbe interfered with by courts in the exercise of their power under Art.
\n226 of the Constitution or by this Court under Art.136 or 32 of the
\nConstitution.   For this proposition, reliance can be placed on the
\ndecision of this Court in the case  Systopic Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. vs.
\nDr. Prem Gupta & Ors.<\/a> (1994 Suppl.(1) SCC 160).   Paragraphs 19 and
\n20  of this decision clearly give the answer on the question whether the
\nfindings of expert body in technical and scientific matters can be
\ninterfered with by the Court either under Art.226 or by this Court under
\nArt.  32 or 136 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
Paragraph 19 is re-produced below:\n<\/p>\n
” Having considered the submissions made by the
\nlearned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
\nAdditional Solicitor General in this regard, we must
\nexpress our inability to make an assessment about
\nthe relative merits of the various studies and
\nreports which have been placed before us.   Such
\nan  evaluation is required to be done by the Central
\nGovernment while exercising its powers under
\nsection 26-A of the Act on the basis of expert advice
\nand the Act makes provision for obtaining such
\nadvice through the Board and the DCC.\n<\/p>\n
(Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
Para 20 is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“The learned counsel for the petitioners have
\nurged that these studies and reports had been
\nsubmitted on behalf of the petitioners and other
\nmanufacturers before the Sub-Committee of the
\nDCC as well as the Experts Committee but there
\nhas been no proper consideration of the same by
\nthe experts as well as the DCC and the Board.   In
\nthis context, it has been submitted that no medical
\nexpert in the field of clinical medicine in the
\ntreatment of asthma was associated in the
\ncommittees and such experts alone could make a
\nproper evaluation of the said studies.   We find no
\nsubstance in this contention.   We have pursued
\nthe minutes of the meetings of the Board, the Sub-
\nCommittee of the DCC as well as the Experts
\nCommittee.   The minutes show that the material
\nthat was  submitted on behalf of the manufacturers
\nof the drugs in question was examined by the
\nmembers and it is not possible to hold that there
\nhas been no proper consideration of the said
\nmaterial by the Experts Committee or the Sub-\n<\/p>\n
Committee of the DCC.   The complaint that experts
\nin clinical medicine were  not associated with the
\nCommittee does not appear to be justified.  The
\nminutes of the meetings of the experts to consider
\nthe views of the affected  manufacturers, who
\nrepresented against the proposed withdrawal of
\ncertain formulations moving in the market, which
\nwere held on September 8, 1987,  October 16\/17,
\n1987 and January 15\/16, 1989 show that among
\nthe members were included Dr. O.D. Gulati, Dean,
\nCAM Medical College, Karansad and Dr.J.P. Wali,
\nAssistant Professor of Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi,
\nDr. M.Durairaj Consultant, Cardiologist, Director of
\nCardiology, Poona Hospital and Research Centre,
\nPune was also member of the Sub-Committee and
\nhad attended the meeting held on January 15\/16,
\n1988.   It cannot, therefore, be said that the medical
\nexperts in clinical medicine were not associated in
\nthe Experts Committee for evaluation of the
\nmaterial that was furnished by the manufacturers.”(
\nEmphasis supplied )<\/p>\n
\tSimilar is the view expressed by this Court in K.Vasudevan Nair &
\nOrs.  Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. (1991 Supp. (2) SCC 134).   We have in detail
\nnoticed the report of the Krishnan Committee and its recommendations
\nin the earlier part of this judgment.   In our view, Krishnan Committee
\nhas also not recommended closure of the unit because of cattle
\ndepletion but on the other hand suggested some measures that may be
\ntaken to minimize cattle depletion.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussions made
\nhereinabove and after considering the reports submitted by the
\ncommittee of the Central Govt. and the 16th and 17th Quinquennial
\ncensus and report of the Krishnan Committee , we do not find any
\nreason to show our concern that the functioning of Al-Kabeer abattoir
\nwould result in depletion of buffalo population in the Hinterland of the
\nabattoir.\n<\/p>\n
Before concluding  this issue, let us deal with Submission No. (h)
\nmade by Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh in C.A.No.3968 of 1994. On behalf
\nof Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh in Submission No.(h) it was urged that
\nthe decision in Mohd.Hanif Quareshi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar
\n(1959 SCR 629), would not help Al-Kabeer in any way as the position at
\npresent is completely different. In that decision, total ban on slaughter
\nof old cattle was struck down on the ground that there was scarcity of
\nfodder resources, which however, according to the Akhil Bharat Goseva
\nSangh, does not exist any longer. In the case of State of Gujarat vs.
\nMirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Ors.<\/a> reported in  [2005 (8)
\nSCC 534], it has also been held that in view of the position that exists
\nnow i.e. adequate availability of cattle feed resources, the question of
\nstriking down total ban on slaughter of old cattle for scarcity of fodder
\nresources would not arise at all. In our view, this position cannot be
\ndisputed. However, in the present case, we are concerned with the A.P.
\nAct, 1977 which does not impose a total ban on slaughter of a
\nparticular type bovine animal, whereas in Mirzapur’s case (Supra) this
\nCourt dealt with the provisions of Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat
\nAmendment) Act, 1994 which imposes a total ban on slaughter of cow
\nand its progeny. So far as the A.P. Act, 1977 is concerned, there is no
\ntotal ban on slaughter of buffaloes. Therefore, in our view, this
\nsubmission of the Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh cannot at all be accepted,
\nas we are not concerned with the case of striking down a particular
\nprovision which imposes an absolute prohibition of slaughter of
\nparticular types of bovine animals. In Mirzapur case, it was, however,
\nnot held that permitting slaughter of bovine cattle by itself is
\nunconstitutional.   This being the position, we are not in agreement
\nwith the learned counsel for the appellant that Submission No.(h) can
\ncome to their assistance for the purpose of banning of slaughter of
\nbuffaloes by Al-Kabeer.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe last question which was agitated by Akhil Bharat Goseva
\nSangh ( C.A. No. 3968\/1994 ) but not agitated by the other appellants
\nin the other appeals was whether the policy of the Central Govt. to
\npromote export of meat violates constitutional provisions.    According
\nto the appellant, the policy of the Govt. to encourage slaughter for
\nexport is subject to judicial review as policies which violate
\nconstitutional provisions are reviewable. This policy violates Art. 39(b)
\nand (c) of the Constitution as it serves to concentrate profits from cattle
\nwealth in a few hands.   It was further submitted by Akhil Bharat
\nGoseva Sangh that not only this policy violates Art. 47 of the
\nConstitution as it leads to malnutrition  but  also Art. 48 which
\ncontains a positive command to the State to preserve and improve
\nbreeds and prohibit slaughter of milch and draught cattle regardless of
\ntheir usefulness .       The learned counsel  has also contended that this
\npolicy also violates Art. 21 by depriving the society of the useful benefits
\nof animals.  It was further submitted that the A.P. Act, 1977 does not
\nmention any specific age limit under which cattle slaughter is
\nprohibited and therefore the determination of healthy and useful cattle
\nis subjective and with a scope of maneuverability.   Although no
\nprovision of the aforesaid Act prescribes the age of  any slaughterable
\nbuffalo but the A.P. animal husbandry manual prescribes the age of
\nslaughterable buffaloes as above 10 years.  According to this  appellant,
\nthese buffaloes are useful even till 15-20 years.   Lastly, it was
\nsubmitted that the agencies of the State Government also recommended
\nban on export of meat and such being the position this Court may
\nstrike down the policy of the Central Govt. so far as the meat export
\npolicy is concerned.   This submission of the appellant was contested by
\nthe learned counsel for the respondents, in particular, the learned
\nAdvocate for APEDA in C.A. No. 3968\/1994.   In our view, as the
\npolicies taken by the Central Govt. and APEDA, which is a creation of
\nthe Parliament for promotion of export and product development of
\nscheduled products, the question of striking down of the policy cannot
\narise.   However, it will be always open to the Court to direct the Central
\nGovt. or the State Government to renew or review its policy and to make
\na fresh policy at any time if they find it to be  expedient to do so.   As
\nnoted herein earlier, APEDA is a statutory authority created by an Act
\nof Parliament for promotion of export and product development of
\nscheduled products.   “Scheduled Product” has been defined in section
\n2(i) of the Act which means any of the agricultural or processed food
\nproducts included in the Schedule.   Item No.2 to the Schedule of the
\nAct of 1985 mandates that APEDA shall promote export and
\ndevelopment of scheduled products.   It is the consistent policy of the
\nGovernment of India to encourage export of meat and meat products,
\nas would be evident from the following:\n<\/p>\n
\tExport of buffalo meat is on the  OGL list.\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tGovernment of India in its Directive has stressed
\nexport of meat and meat products as thrust area.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tCurrent “Foreign Trade Policy” encourage export
\nof meat.   It provides for export of meat of buffalo
\nprovided it is accompanied by a certificate from
\nthe designated veterinary authority to the effect
\nthat meat or offal are from buffalo not used for
\nbreeding and milching purposes.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt appears that the certificates that are to be or already issued was
\nin conformity with the decision of the Constitution Bench’s judgment in
\nMohd. Hanif Qureshi’s case reported in [1959 SCR 629].    It is the case
\nof the Government as well as the abattoir that only those buffaloes
\nwhich are unfit for milching, breeding and draught were permitted to be
\nslaughtered and are being slaughtered.    We have already discussed
\nthe decline of cattle population because of the operation of Al-Kabeer  in
\nthis judgment hereinbefore.   In Mohd. Hanif Qureshi’s case reported in
\n[1959 SCR 629] the issue was not whether the population of live stock
\nwas increasing or not but whether the population of healthy live stock
\nwas increasing. Although it was sought to be argued by the appellant
\nthat due to slaughter of buffaloes by Al-Kabeer,  the population of
\nhealthy buffaloes was declining even then in view of our discussion
\nmade hereinearlier, it must be confirmed that there is no depletion of
\ncattle\/buffalo wealth due to operation of Al-Kabeer. Apart from that, it
\nappears from the record that Al-Kabeer slaughterhouse was built in
\naccordance with European Economic Community Standards and is one
\nof the most modern, scientific, integrated slaughterhouses in India with
\nan installed capacity of 15000 MT.  If in any way Al-Kabeer is directed
\nto close down their factory the said action on the part of the Central
\nGovernment would be to discourage private entrepreneurs to invest in
\nthe meat industry which will affect the reputation of India in the export
\nmarket of meat.  As we have already noted, the interim direction given
\nby this Court on 12th March 1997 by which the production of Al-Kabeer
\nwas reduced to 50 %, the total export of meat from India, which is
\nabout 1,70,000 MT., did not reduce. For the reasons aforesaid, we are
\nunable to direct at this stage to strike down the policy regarding meat
\nexport from India to foreign countries. We are of the view that the policy
\nof the Central Government cannot be easily struck down only because
\nthere was slight decline of cattle growth nor it can be struck down
\nbefore looking into the entire aspect of the matter. It is also well settled
\nthat policy decision of the Government cannot be interfered with or
\nstruck down merely on certain factual disputes in the matter. It is not
\nopen to the Court to strike down such decision until and unless a
\nserious and grave error is found on the part of the Central Government
\nor the State Government. Such being the position, we are unable to
\nstrike down this meat export policy of the Central Government, as in
\nour view, it does not violate the constitutional provisions. That apart,
\nthe question regarding constitutionality as mentioned above was not
\nargued before the High Court seriously.     Accordingly, this submission
\nof Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh is hereby rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\tApart from that,  from the discussion made hereinabove, we find
\nthat it is also the consistent policy of the Government of India to
\nencourage export of meat and meat products.   The current foreign
\ntrade policy also encourages export of meat provided that a designated
\nveterinary authority certifies that it is not obtained from buffalo used
\nfor breeding and milching purposes.   It is true that in the Constitution
\nBench decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat  vs.
\nMirzapur reported in [2005 (8) SCC 534]  it has been held that the
\nprotection envisaged under Art.48 extended even to cattle that had
\nceased to be milch or draught, provided they fall within the category of
\nmilch and draught cattle.   In  State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur (supra) it
\nhas also been held that cattle  forms  the backbone of Indian
\nagriculture and they remain useful throughout their lives.   While
\ndealing with Art. 48 and 48-A of the Constitution read with the
\nfundamental rights, the Constitution Bench further held that both
\ndirective principles and fundamental duties must be kept in mind while
\nassessing the reasonableness of legal restrictions placed upon
\nfundamental rights.   However, striking down a law or policy on the
\nground that it violates a directive principle or fundamental duty was not
\nan issue before the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of State
\nof Gujarat vs. Mirzapur (supra).   It is true that in the aforesaid
\nConstitution Bench decision it has been held that total prohibition of
\ncow and cow progeny slaughter may be justified. However, it has not
\nbeen held in that decision that laws and policies which permit  such
\nslaughter are unconstitutional.  Therefore, the position of  law remains
\nthat the directive principles and fundamental duties cannot in
\nthemselves serve to invalidate a legislation or a policy.    Moreover,  the
\nexport policy itself permits  only export of meat from buffaloes that are
\ncertified as not useful for milching, breeding or draught purposes.
\nTherefore, if properly implemented, it cannot be said that the policy will
\nnecessarily have adverse consequences, especially in view of the foreign
\nexchange obtained through it.   Accordingly, we are unable to accede to
\nthe argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the meat
\nexport policy, as made by the Central Government must to be struck
\ndown.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that meat export
\npolicy need not be struck down subject to constant review by the
\nCentral Government in the light of its potentially harmful effects on the
\neconomy of the country.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of our discussion made hereinabove and for the reasons
\nstated hereinearlier we are of the view that these appeals can be
\ndisposed off by giving the following directions:-\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThe APPCB is hereby directed to rectify its consent order given to Al-
\nKabeer following Rule 3 read with Schedule 1, Entry 50-B of the
\nEnvironmental Protection Rules, 1986. In the event abattoir fails to
\ncomply with such rectified consent order of the APPCB, it would be
\nopen to the authorities to direct closure of the Al-Kabeer unit.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe APPCB is directed to file reports before the State Government as
\nwell as Central Government relating to compliance with the pollution
\nstandards by Al-Kabeer specified under its consent order in
\ncompliance with the Environmental Protection Rules, 1986, once in
\nevery three months.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe Company is directed to regularly monitor pollution of air and
\nwater by its abattoir. It is further directed to file a report of its
\ncompliance with the Environmental laws, particularly, the
\nEnvironmental Protection Rules, 1986, before the APPCB every
\nmonth.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tAl-Kabeer is directed to file reports before the State Government on
\ncattle population in its surrounding areas once every year. The State
\nGovernment shall examine the correctness of the said report and
\nthereafter take appropriate action.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe State Government is directed to monitor regularly and strictly in
\nrespect of Al Kabeer’s compliance with all applicable laws,
\nparticularly the provisions of  the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow
\nSlaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977, once every three
\nmonths and to obtain reports on the same and thereafter to take
\nnecessary action for their proper implementation.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe Company is directed to prepare a plan in consultation with the
\nState Government and take up its implementation in conjunction
\nwith the State Government for promoting better animal husbandry
\npractices within the next three months. The State Government is
\ndirected to take all the necessary steps for this purpose.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tModernizing the existing abattoirs in the state is advisable and in
\nthat regard the State Government may take steps that it considers
\nnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tFinally, the Central Govt. is directed to review the meat export policy,
\nin the light of the Directive Principles of State Policy under the
\nConstitution of India, and also in the light of the policy’s potentially
\nharmful effects on livestock population, and therefore on the
\neconomy of the country.\n<\/p>\n
\tHowever, we keep it open to the Central Government and the State
\nGovernment to consider the distance prohibitions as indicated in the
\nLOI, the Notifications and General Order of the State Government and
\nin the event, the Central Government or the State Government comes to
\nthe conclusion that the abattoir cannot be permitted to run their
\nbusiness at the site in question, in that case, the Central Government
\nor the State Government, as the case may be, shall be entitled to
\nproceed in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tConsidering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in
\nview of the fact that this Court by an interim order granted stay of the
\noperation of the direction of the High Court for initiating a prosecution
\nof Dr. Kishan Rao ( Appellant in C.A. No. 3966\/1994 ) under section
\n195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 191 of the
\nIndian Penal Code, we do not find any reason to proceed with this
\nprosecution against Dr. Kishan Rao any further.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of the disposal of appeals by this common judgment, all
\nInterlocutory Applications and Contempt Petition pending, if any, shall
\nalso stand disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
In Civil Appeal Nos. 4711-4713 of 1998 :\n<\/p>\n
          \tAlthough these three appeals being C.A. Nos. 4711-4713 of
\n1998 ( Umesh & Ors.  vs.  Karnataka & Ors. ) were heard along with
\nC.A. Nos. 3964-68 of 1994, it was thought fit to deliver the judgment in
\nC.A. Nos. 4711-4713 of 1998 separately, as the questions involved in
\nthese appeals were not  in issue in C.A. Nos. 3964-68 of 1994.
\nAccordingly,  the judgment in these three appeals which involved
\ncommon questions of law and fact is being delivered in the following
\nmanner:-\n<\/p>\n
\t Before the Karnataka High Court, two writ petitions being W.P.
\nNos.32999-33000\/1995 were filed by one N. Umesh and Hindu
\nJagarana Vedike.   Another Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.
\n31217\/1992 was filed in the same  High Court by Smt. Sarojini
\nMuthanna and H. Mangalamba Rao and others. In the Writ Petitions
\nbearing W.P. Nos. 32999 of 1995 and W.P. No. 33000 of 1995 filed by
\nUmesh and Hindu Jagaran Vedike, the following reliefs were sought :\n<\/p>\n
(1)\t  A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to
\nstrictly enforce the provisions of sections 4,8,9,10,11 and 18 of the
\nMysore Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964
\n( in short “the 1964 Act”)  in Chamarajnagar Taluk of Mysore District
\nand also to direct State Government to establish institutions for taking
\ncare of cows and other animals in accordance with the aforesaid
\nprovisions of the Act at the earliest.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Declare section 5 of the 1964 Act as void and ultra-vires the spirit of
\nthe Directive Principles of the Constitution  Act.37 and 48  and
\nviolative of Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
\n(3) Declare partial prohibition of slaughter of bovine cattle under 1964
\nAct as violative of Arts. 14,15,21,25 and 26 of the Constitution.
\n(4) Issue a writ of total prohibition of slaughter of bovine cattle in the
\nwhole of Karnataka.\n<\/p>\n
\tPractically, the same reliefs were claimed by Sarojini Muthanna
\nand Mangalamba Rao   in  W.P. No. 31217 of 1992.   However, W.P. No.
\n31217 of 1992 relates to Kodagu and Coorg districts of Karnataka.
\n\tAfter exchange of affidavits and after hearing the learned counsel
\nfor the parties all the three Writ Petitions were rejected by the High
\nCourt  by a common judgment  dated 16th March 1998. Against this
\njudgment the present appeals have been preferred by the appellants
\nwhich were admitted by this Court on grant of special leave and heard
\nin presence of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
\n\tThe relevant facts which are required to be taken into
\nconsideration in deciding these appeals are enumerated below.
\n\tThe three Writ Petitions filed in the High Court  were in the nature
\nof Public Interest Litigations and the petitioners were  prosecuting the
\nWrit Petitions before the Court in representative capacity.
\n\tThe first appellant herein is an honourary Animal Welfare Officer
\nof the Animal Board of India.   Second appellant herein i.e. Hindu
\nJagarana Vedike  is an organization which is working to uphold Hindu
\nvalues and is interested in protecting sanctity of “cow”.   The third
\nappellant herein is a native of Kodagu district and belongs to Kodava
\ncommunity of Hindus.    The fourth appellant herein is a  practicing
\nAdvocate and resident of Bangalore city.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the erstwhile State of Coorg which now forms part of Karnataka
\nState there had been a total prohibition of slaughter of cows and its
\nprogeny since slaughtering or killing of cows and calves or bullocks or
\noxen was considered an unpardonable sin and was considered as being
\nopposed to sentiments, customs and religious beliefs of the natives of
\nCoorg called ‘ Kodavas’.     Further all these religious sentiments had for
\nlong received statutory protection and had been followed before the
\nreorganization of the State under the States Reorganization  Act of
\n1956.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the erstwhile State of Mysore, the Mysore Prevention of Cows
\nSlaughter Act 1948 prohibited slaughter of cows, bulls, bullocks,
\nbuffaloes and calves in order to conserve cattle wealth of the State.     In
\n1964,  after the merger of the former State of Coorg with the State of
\nMysore, a new enactment, namely, the Mysore Prevention of Cow
\nSlaughter and Cattle Preservation Act 1964 ( in short “1964 Act”), which
\nrepealed the 1948 Act,   modified the animal slaughter laws in the State
\nto the following effect :\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tSlaughter of cows and  calves of she buffaloes was totally
\nprohibited (Section 4)
\n(2)\tOther bovine animals namely bulls, bullocks, buffaloes could be
\nslaughtered after obtaining a certificate in writing from the competent
\nauthority that the animal is fit for slaughter i.e. it is above the age of 12
\nyears or that the animal has become permanently incapacitated for
\nbreeding, draught or milch purposes due to injuries, deformities or any
\nother cause. (Section 5)
\n\tUnder Sec. 18  of the 1964 Act  the State Government has the
\nauthority to establish or direct establishment of institutions to take care
\nof cows and other animals.\n<\/p>\n
Before us, the following questions had cropped up for decision:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tWhether the High Court erred in dismissing the petitions all-
\ntogether after holding that the State Government must strictly
\nimplement the provisions of the 1964 Act?\n<\/p>\n
2.\tWhether the view taken by this Court in Mohd.Hanif Quareshi  Vs.
\nState of Bihar [1959 SCR 629] regarding implementation of Art. 48
\ndirective principle vis-`-vis fundamental right guaranteed requires
\nmodification in the light of larger bench decision in Keshavananda
\nBharti Case (1973 (4) SCC 225) and the subsequent decisions of this
\nCourt?\n<\/p>\n
3.\tWhether the terms in Art. 48 are wide enough to include all
\ncategories of bovine cattle?\n<\/p>\n
4.\tWhether section 5 of the 1964 Act is unconstitutional in so far as
\nit does not impose a total prohibition of slaughter of bovine cattle and
\nwhether a writ must be issued directing the State to prohibit slaughter
\nof all bovine cattle in the State of Karnataka?\n<\/p>\n
\t   Before we decide these questions, we may keep in mind the
\nfindings arrived at by the High Court of Karnataka in the impugned
\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs noted  herein earlier, we find from the reliefs claimed in all the
\nthree aforesaid Writ Petitions,  a prayer was made seeking a writ in the
\nnature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to strictly enforce
\nthe provisions of Sections 4, 8 to 11 and 18 of the 1964 Act in
\nChamarajnagar Taluk of Mysore District, Coorg District, Kodagu
\nDistrict  and also to direct the State Government to establish
\ninstitutions for taking care of cows and other animals in accordance
\nwith the aforesaid provisions of the Act at the earliest.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn paragraph 8, the High Court concluded in the impugned order
\non this relief in favour of the appellants and found that ” it is needless
\nto state that the Government and its officers are required to strictly
\nenforce and implement the provisions of the Act”. (Emphasis supplied).
\nThat being the conclusion made by the High Court in the body of the
\njudgment, in respect of Question No.1, we feel it proper at this stage to
\ndirect the State Government and its instrumentalities to strictly enforce
\nand implement the provisions of Sections 4, 8 to 11 and 18 of the 1964
\nAct without going into this question in detail. It is needless to state that
\nstatutory provisions are required to be strictly complied with and
\ntherefore it is the duty of the State authorities to comply with the
\naforesaid provisions of the 1964 Act. In this view of the matter,
\nQuestion No.1 as framed herein earlier is decided in favour of the
\nappellants by directing the State Government and other State
\nauthorities to strictly enforce and  implement the provisions of Sections
\n4, 8 to 11 and 18 of the 1964 Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tEven though this conclusion was arrived at by the High Court in
\nfavour of the appellants, ultimate decision,  however,  went against
\nthem i.e. Writ Petitions were dismissed in their entirety.\n<\/p>\n
\tLet us now deal with the second issue raised by the appellants
\nbefore us.   According to the appellants, the view taken in  Mohd. Hanif
\nQuareshi & Ors. vs. State of Bihar [1959 SCR 629] decision vis-`-vis
\nrelationship between  Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights
\nrequires modification in the light of the decision in the case of
\nKesavananda Bharathi  vs. State of Kerala ( 1973 (4) SCC 225) and
\nsubsequent decisions.   We need not deal with this aspect of the matter
\nin detail in view of the recent decision of this Court in the case of State
\nof Gujarat  Vs. Mirzapur [2005 (8) SCC 534].   The decision of this
\nCourt in the case of  Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Ors. Vs.  State of Bihar
\n[1959 SCR 629] has now been over-ruled on this point by the
\nConstitution Bench decision of this Court in Mirzapur case.   Therefore,
\nthis question is decided in favour of the appellants.   In Mohd. Hanif
\nQuareshi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar [1959 SCR 629] the contention that
\na law enacted to give effect to Directive Principles cannot be held to be
\nviolative of fundamental rights was rejected on the ground that :\n<\/p>\n
” a harmonious interpretation has to be placed upon
\nthe Constitution and so interpreted it means that the
\nState should certainly implement the directive
\nprinciples but it must do so in such a way that its
\nlaws do not take away or abridge the fundamental
\nrights, for otherwise the protecting provisions of
\nChapter III will be “a mere rope of sand”.( Emphasis
\nsupplied).\n<\/p>\n
\tThis view was, however, not accepted in the aforesaid Constitution
\nBench decision in the case of State of Gujarat  vs.  Mirzapur [(2005) 8
\nSCC 534].   The Constitution Bench noted that after the decision in
\nKesavananda Bharathi  vs. State of Kerala  [1973 (4) SCC 225] the
\nposition is :\n<\/p>\n
\t“A restriction placed on any fundamental right
\naimed at securing Directive Principles will be held
\nas reasonable and hence intra vires subject to two
\nlimitations : first that it does not run in clear
\nconflict with the fundamental right, and secondly
\nthat it has been enacted within the legislative
\ncompetence of the enacting legislature under Part
\nXI Chapter I of the Constitution.”( Emphasis
\nsupplied )<\/p>\n
\tIn Paragraph 22 of the decision in the case of State of Gujarat  Vs.
\nMirzapur it has been held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The restrictions which can be placed on the
\nrights listed in Article 19(1) are not subject only to
\nArticles 19(2) to 19(6); the provisions contained in
\nthe Chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy
\ncan also be pressed into service and relied on for the
\npurpose of adjudging the reasonability of restrictions
\nplaced on the fundamental rights.”(Emphasis
\nsupplied).\n<\/p>\n
\tFurther, in the case of State of Gujarat  vs. Mirzapur,  so far as
\nArts.48, 48-A and also Art. 51-A(g) are concerned the following was
\nheld:\n<\/p>\n
\t“It is thus clear that faced with the question of
\ntesting the constitutional validity of any statutory
\nprovision or an executive act, or for testing the
\nreasonableness of any restriction cast by law on the
\nexercise of any fundamental right by way of
\nregulation, control or prohibition, the Directive
\nPrinciples of State Policy and Fundamental Duties as
\nenshrined in Art. 51-A of the Constitution play a
\nsignificant role.   The decision in Quareshi-1 in
\nwhich the relevant provisions of the three impugned
\nlegislations were struck down on the singular
\nground of lack of reasonability, would have been
\ndecided otherwise if only Art. 48 was assigned its full
\nand correct meaning and due weightage was given
\nthereto and Arts.48-A and 51-A(g) were available in
\nthe body of the Constitution.” (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\tIn view of the aforesaid admitted position in law, we therefore hold
\nthe question No.2, as framed, must be decided in favour of the
\nappellants.  This question, even though decided in favour of the
\nappellants would not materially affect the decision of this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe third question which concerns interpretation of Art. 48 of the
\nConstitution shall now be dealt with.\n<\/p>\n
In 1958 Quareshi’s case it was held that:\n<\/p>\n
\t“the protection recommended by this part of
\nthe directive is, in our opinion, confined only to
\ncows and calves and to those animals which are
\npresently or potentially capable of yielding milk or
\nof doing work as draught cattle but does not, from
\nthe very nature of the purpose for which it is
\nobviously recommended, extend to cattle which at
\none time were milch or draught cattle but which
\nhave ceased to be such.”\t(Emphasis supplied).\n<\/p>\n
\tBut in the case of State of Gujarat  vs. Mirzapur this position was
\nover-ruled and it has been held that:\n<\/p>\n
\t“In our opinion, the expression ‘milch or
\ndraught cattle’ as employed in Article 48 of the
\nConstitution is a description of a classification or
\nspecies of cattle as distinct from cattle which by
\ntheir nature are not milch or draught and the said
\nwords do not include milch or draught cattle,
\nwhich on account of age or disability, cease to be
\nfunctional for those purposes either temporarily or
\npermanently. The said words take colour from the
\npreceding words “cows or calves”. A specie of cattle
\nwhich is milch or draught for a number of years
\nduring its span of life is to be included within the
\nsaid expression. On ceasing to be milch or draught
\nit cannot be pulled out from the category of ‘other
\nmilch and draught cattle.” (Emphasis supplied).\n<\/p>\n
\tSuch being the position and in view of the Constitution Bench
\ndecision as aforesaid, it can no longer be held that the protection
\nrecommended by this part of the directive under Art. 48 of the
\nConstitution can be said to be confined only to cows and calves and
\nthose animals which are presently capable of yielding milk or of doing
\nwork as draught cattle. The aforesaid Constitution Bench decision has
\nclarified that the protection under Art. 48 of the Constitution also
\nextends to cattle which at one time were milch or draught but which
\nhave ceased to be such.   A submission was made by the learned
\ncounsel for the parties on the usefulness of cattle.   In 1958 Quareshi’s
\ncase it was held that cattle becomes useless after a certain age which is
\nfor the Legislature to determine and thereafter their maintenance is a
\nburden on the economy of the country.   This position has also been
\nnegatived by the decision of the Constitution Bench in the aforesaid
\ncase,  and it has been held by this Court as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“We have found that bulls and bullocks do not
\nbecome useless merely by crossing a particular
\nage.The increasing adoption of non-conventional
\nenergy sources like Bio-gas plants justify the need
\nfor bulls and bullocks to live their full life inspite of
\ntheir having ceased to be useful for the purpose of
\nbreeding and draught.”( Emphasis supplied )<\/p>\n
\tFollowing the aforesaid findings and on the basis of the findings
\nthat our economy has adequate cattle feed resources and alternative
\nsources of nutrition, in the case of State of Gujarat  vs.  Mirzapur ,   it
\nwas held as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The Legislature has correctly appreciated the
\nneeds of its own people and recorded the same in
\nthe Preamble of the impugned enactment and the
\nStatement of Objects and Reasons appended to it.
\nIn the light of the material available in abundance
\nbefore us, there is no escape from the conclusion
\nthat the protection conferred by impugned
\nenactment on cow progeny is needed in the interest
\nof Nation’s economy. Merely because it may cause
\n‘inconvenience’ or some ‘dislocation’ to the
\nbutchers, restriction imposed by the impugned
\nenactment does not cease to be in the interest of
\nthe general public. The former must yield to the
\nlatter.”\t( Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\tTherefore, in our view, the interpretation of Art. 48 of the
\nConstitution has now been widened and “milch  and draught cattle”
\ninclude cattle which have become permanently incapacitated to be used
\nfor milch and draught purposes.  Hence, this question is decided in
\nfavour of the appellants.  Though, this question has been decided in
\nfavour of the appellants, it does not make any material difference to the
\nfinal decision of this case.   It is the decision on the next issue i.e. issue
\nNo.4 that will have impact on final directions to be issued in this case.\n<\/p>\n
\tLet us come to issue No.4, i.e. whether section 5 of the 1964 Act is
\nunconstitutional in so far as it does not impose a total prohibition on
\nslaughter of bovine cattle and whether a writ of mandamus must be
\nissued to the State Government to impose a total ban on slaughter of
\nbovine cattle in the State of Karnataka?\n<\/p>\n
\tIn State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur the impugned Act therein,
\nprovided for prohibition on slaughter of certain types of cattle.  The
\nConstitution Bench of this Court in that case held such a legislation to
\nbe constitutional in the light of the finding that the legislation was in
\nfurtherance of the directive in Art. 48 of the Constitution and any
\nenactment which furthers the cause in the directive principles of State
\nPolicy cannot be held to be unconstitutional.   It was, however, not held
\nthat permitting slaughter of bovine cattle  by itself is unconstitutional.
\nIn the case at hand, section 5 of the 1964 Act does not provide for a
\ntotal prohibition on slaughter of bovine cattle.   That being the case,
\ndeclaring section 5 of the 1964 Act as unconstitutional and directing
\nthe State Government to impose a total ban on slaughter of bovine
\ncattle, as requested by the appellants, would lead to judicial legislation
\nand would encroach upon the powers of the Legislature.   Therefore,
\nthe prayer of the appellants in issue No.4 to issue a writ to the State
\nGovernment to totally prohibit slaughter of bovine cattle is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of our discussions made hereinabove, even though the
\nMirzapur decision supports the submission of the appellants on the
\nquestions Nos.2 and 3, the issuance of writ of Mandamus to compel
\ntotal prohibition of cattle slaughter would only amount to judicial
\nlegislation and would encroach upon the powers of the Karnataka
\nLegislature, as held by the High Court, which, in our view, was the right
\napproach made by it.    That being the position, we are of the view that
\nthe question of declaring total ban on slaughter of cattle cannot be
\npermitted and section 5 of the Act cannot be said to be ultra vires of the
\nConstitution.   For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are allowed in
\npart, i.e. to the extent of directing the State Government to strictly
\nenforce  and implement the provisions of Sections 4, 8-11 and 18 of the
\n1964 Act and take action on any violations thereof.   Further, it is
\ndirected that the State Government  maintain proper institutions  for
\nproviding care and protection to cattle in the light of section 18 of the
\n1964 Act.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThere will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 29 March, 2006 Author: T Chatterjee Bench: Cji, Tarun Chatterjee 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-190474","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAkhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 29 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 29 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-08T14:32:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"92 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 29 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-08T14:32:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":18460,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006\",\"name\":\"Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 29 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-08T14:32:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 29 March, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 29 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 29 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-08T14:32:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"92 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 29 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-08T14:32:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006"},"wordCount":18460,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006","name":"Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 29 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-08T14:32:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bharat-goseva-sangh-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-29-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 29 March, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190474","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=190474"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190474\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}