# AKHIL SHARA T GOSEWA SANGH v. STATE OF A.P. AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2006] 3 S.C.R. 543
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2006-03-29
- **Bench:** Y.K. Sabharwal, Tarun Cha Tierjee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/akhil-shara-t-gosewa-sangh-v-state-of-a-p-and-ors-21235
- **Pages:** 60

## Headnote

B
Industries (Development and Regulations) Act, 1951; Section 11(2)/
Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act,
1977/Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1964; Section 131(3)/Notification C
dated July 25, 1991 issued by the Central Government and Notification
dated February 3, 1992 issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh:
Application for grant of industrial licence to a company to run slaughter
house-Issuance of No Objection Certificates by various authorities-State
Government recommending grant of the licence-Central Government issuing D
Letter of Intent in terms of provisions of Industries (Developmenl and
Regulations) Act-Suspension of permission by Gram Panchayat-Suspension
order lifted by the State Government-Challenge to--Reversed by a Single
Judge of !he High Courl-Appeal against-Division Bench of the High Court
held that since authorities concerned granted permission duly considering all
the relevant facts, there was no ground for intervening and disturbing E
establishment of the slaughter house-On appeal, Held: Only after holding an
enquiry and having satisfied, permission to run the slaughter house granted--
Provisions relating to location requirements/distance prohibition are directory
in nature-Cenlral Government could issue licence even without imposing
any conditions as to the distance prohibition-Since the licence was issued to F
the company, it amounts to waiver of the conditions-Besides, the licence
issued to the company in terms of the industrial policy of the State Government,
hence, the distance prohibition could not be considered to be a ground for
cancellation of the licence/closing down of the unit-Since, question as to
location requirement is a question of fact, it cannot allowed to be raised at
this stage.
G
Grant of an Industrial Licence -Environment Protection Ru/esViolation of-Held: State Pollution Control Board could prescribe higher
standards of pollution control but could not lower the same-Since the company
543
H
544
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2006] 3 S.C.R.
A had installed elaborate anti-pollution equipments, the company is directed
to comply with the Rule by lowering down the pollution level to permissible
limits--!f the company fails to do so, it would be open to the authorities to
direct closure of the company--Environment Protection Rules--Rule 3--
Schedule /--Entry 50 B.
B
Water Act; Sections 11 and 25:
Right to information to members of public--Non-disc/osure---Ejject of--
Held: Provisions under the Act does not confer any such right--Hence, issuance
of NOC by the authorities not vitiated by reason of non-disclosure of
C information to the appellant--('onstitution of India, 1950--Artic/e 19(/){a).
Grant of Licence to run slaughter house--Ejfect on Caulelbuffaloes
population-Held: Central <Jovernment report confirms that there was no
reduction in the population of buffaloes since commencement of operation of
the abattoir-Since findings/report of the expert bodies in scientific/technical
D matters would not ordinarily be interfered with by the Courts in exercise of
power under Article 2261136 or 32 of the Constitution, it cannot be held that
the functioning of the abattoir would result in reduction of buffaloes
population-Constitution of India, 1950--Artic/es 32--136--226.
Grant of permission to run a slaughter house vis-a-vis Central
E Government Export Policy--Held: Despite directions by the Supreme Court to
the company for reduction of its production to 50%, the total export of meat
did not reduce-Striking down the existing meat export policy would result in
discouraging the private entrepreneurs to invest in the meat industry-A Policy
of the Government cannot be struck down merely on certain/actual disputes--
F
Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties cannot themselves serve to
invalidate a policy-The policy, in question, does not violate the constitutional
provisions-Hence, it cannot be struck down------Constitution of India, 1950--
Artic/es 2 !--39(b) & (c)--

## Text

_Characters 0–39,829 of 151,269. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39829 for what follows._

AKHIL SHARA T GOSEWA SANGH
A
v.
STATE OF A.P. AND ORS.
MARCH 29, 2006
[Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJ. AND TARUN CHA TIERJEE, J.]
B
Industries (Development and Regulations) Act, 1951; Section 11(2)/
Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act,
1977/Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1964; Section 131(3)/Notification C
dated July 25, 1991 issued by the Central Government and Notification
dated February 3, 1992 issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh:
Application for grant of industrial licence to a company to run slaughter
house-Issuance of No Objection Certificates by various authorities-State
Government recommending grant of the licence-Central Government issuing D
Letter of Intent in terms of provisions of Industries (Developmenl and
Regulations) Act-Suspension of permission by Gram Panchayat-Suspension
order lifted by the State Government-Challenge to--Reversed by a Single
Judge of !he High Courl-Appeal against-Division Bench of the High Court
held that since authorities concerned granted permission duly considering all
the relevant facts, there was no ground for intervening and disturbing E
establishment of the slaughter house-On appeal, Held: Only after holding an
enquiry and having satisfied, permission to run the slaughter house granted--
Provisions relating to location requirements/distance prohibition are directory
in nature-Cenlral Government could issue licence even without imposing
any conditions as to the distance prohibition-Since the licence was issued to F
the company, it amounts to waiver of the conditions-Besides, the licence
issued to the company in terms of the industrial policy of the State Government,
hence, the distance prohibition could not be considered to be a ground for
cancellation of the licence/closing down of the unit-Since, question as to
location requirement is a question of fact, it cannot allowed to be raised at
this stage.
G
Grant of an Industrial Licence -Environment Protection Ru/esViolation of-Held: State Pollution Control Board could prescribe higher
standards of pollution control but could not lower the same-Since the company
543
H
544
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2006] 3 S.C.R.
A had installed elaborate anti-pollution equipments, the company is directed
to comply with the Rule by lowering down the pollution level to permissible
limits--!f the company fails to do so, it would be open to the authorities to
direct closure of the company--Environment Protection Rules--Rule 3--
Schedule /--Entry 50 B.
B
Water Act; Sections 11 and 25:
Right to information to members of public--Non-disc/osure---Ejject of--
Held: Provisions under the Act does not confer any such right--Hence, issuance
of NOC by the authorities not vitiated by reason of non-disclosure of
C information to the appellant--('onstitution of India, 1950--Artic/e 19(/){a).
Grant of Licence to run slaughter house--Ejfect on Caulelbuffaloes
population-Held: Central <Jovernment report confirms that there was no
reduction in the population of buffaloes since commencement of operation of
the abattoir-Since findings/report of the expert bodies in scientific/technical
D matters would not ordinarily be interfered with by the Courts in exercise of
power under Article 2261136 or 32 of the Constitution, it cannot be held that
the functioning of the abattoir would result in reduction of buffaloes
population-Constitution of India, 1950--Artic/es 32--136--226.
Grant of permission to run a slaughter house vis-a-vis Central
E Government Export Policy--Held: Despite directions by the Supreme Court to
the company for reduction of its production to 50%, the total export of meat
did not reduce-Striking down the existing meat export policy would result in
discouraging the private entrepreneurs to invest in the meat industry-A Policy
of the Government cannot be struck down merely on certain/actual disputes--
F
Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties cannot themselves serve to
invalidate a policy-The policy, in question, does not violate the constitutional
provisions-Hence, it cannot be struck down------Constitution of India, 1950--
Artic/es 2 !--39(b) & (c)----47-48.
Ban on slaughter of bovine animals-Provisions under A.P. Act, 1977
G vis-a-vis Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat) Amendment Act, 1984--
/nterpretation of-Discussed.
Provisions of Mysore Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Prevention
Act, 1964--Enforcement of--Held: State Government is directed to enforce
and implement strictly the provisions under Sections 4. 8 to 11 and 18 of the
H Act.
<
--
-
AKHIL BHART GOSEW A SANGH v. STATE OF A.P.
545
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 48:
A
Directive Principles vis-a-vis-Fundamental Rights-Whether the view
taken by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi case requires
modification in the light of a larger Bench decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of State of Gujarat v~ Mirzapur-Held: Yes, since the larger Bench
has clarified that the protection available under Article 48 could be extended B
to cattle which ceased to be milch or draught animals.
Total prohibition of cattle slaughter-Issuance of writ of mandamusHeld: It would not be appropriate to encroach upon the power of the State
legislature to issue directions declaring total ban on slaughter of cattle, it C
amounts to judicial legislation.
A company had applied to the authorities of Andhra Pradesh State
Government and the Central Government for grant of licence to run a
slaughter house in a village of the said State. The company obtained No
Objection Certificates from the authorities concerned; though No Objection D
Certificates were granted by the authorities subject to fulfilment of certain
conditions, the State Government made recommendations for grant of an
industrial licence to the company to set up abattoir at the selected site. The
Central Government also granted a Letter oflntent under the provisions of
the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 for establishment of E
the slaughter house for manufacturing and export of Frozen Buffalo and
Mutton Meat. While construction of the abattoir had been progressing, the
Gram Panchayat issued a notice in exercise of its power under Section 131
(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 suspending the
permission granted by it earlier and directed the company to stop construction
of the building for the factory/slaughter house until further orders. The F
company filed a revision petition before the State Government questioning
the issuance of the notice by the Gram Panchayat. The revision petition was
allowed by the State Government. Against the order passed in the revision
petition, two writ petitions were filed in the High Court by the organizations
opposing the establishment of the slaughter house, and also by -some G
individuals. Admitting the petitions, Single Judge of the High Court ordered
suspension of the operation of the order passed by the State Government.
Aggrieved, the State Government as well as the company filed writ appeals
which were admitted by a Division Bench of the High Court and the interim
order passed by the Single Judge was stayed. The writ petitions were heard
and disposed of by the High Court in terms of its order dated November 16, H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2006] 3 S.C.R.
A 1991 directing the State Government to prepare a detailed report regarding
the water, air and environment pollution, if any, and the likely effect of the
setting up of the mechanized slaughter house by the company at the village
concerned on the prevailing environment, and also its likely effect on the
cattle wealth in the area, after considering the representations which the
B writ petitioners and other interested parties may submit in writing in this
regard.
In pursuance to the directions of the High Court, the State Government
constituted a Committee (Krishnan Committee) to look into the matter. Thi!
Committee submitted its report, which was forwarded to the Central
C Government but the Central Government did not pass any orders on it Further,
writ petitions were filed by the various organizations, including the appellant,
questioning the grant of permission for trial run of the slaughter house in
question. The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the writ petitions
holding that since the authorities concerned had granted requi5ite permission
duly considering all the relevant facts and circumstances, there exist was no
D ground for intervening with the establishment and operation of the slaughter
house. It also directed prosecution of one of the petitioners for his misstatement in the petitions. While disposing of the writ petition filed by the
present appellant, the Division Bench of the High Court held that the question
as raised by the appellant was already dealt with in the judgment, and
E therefore, there was no need to deal with it all over again. Hence the present
appeals.
An interim order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court
directing the Central Government to look into all the relevant aspects in
terms of the directions of the High Court and to submit a report. The
F
report so submitted by the Central Government was considered by this
Court along with other report as submitted by the Krishnan Committee and
came to a direction that with effect from 1st April 1997 the company shall
function at half of its installed capacity; and that the appeals were due to be
listed in due course.
G
Although the three connected appeals being C.A. Nos. 4711-4713 of
1998 (Umesh & Ors. v. Karnataka & Ors.) were also heard along with C.A.
Nos. 3964-68of1994 (Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh & Urs. v. State of A.P. &
Ors.), the judgment in C.A. Nos. 4711-4713 of 1998 has been dealt with
separately as the questions involved in these appeals were not in issue·i11--·
H C.A. Nos. 3964-68of1994. The questions which arose for determination in
'•
-
AKH!L BHART GOSEWA SANGH "·STATE OF A.P.
547
,__
these three appeals were:
A
(i) As to whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petitions
after holding that the State Government must strictly implement the provisions
of the Mysore Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Prevention Act, 1964;
(ii) As to whether the view taken by this Court in Mohd. Hanif B
Quareshi v. State of Bihar, 11959] SCR 629 regarding implementation of Art.
48 of the Constitution, the directive principles vis-a-vis fundamental rights
requires modification in the light of larger Bench decision in Keshavananda
Bharti Case (197314 SCC 225 and the subsequent decisions of this Court on
the same issue;
c
(iii) As to whether the terms in Art. 48 are wide enough to include all
categories of bovine cattle; and
(iv) As to whether section 5 of the 1964 Act is unconstitutional in
so far as it does not impose a total prohibition of slaughter of bovine cattle D
and as to whether a writ must be issued directing the State Government
to prohibit slaughter of all bovine cattle.
The appellants contended that the question which was raised but not
decided by this Court in its earlier orders and kept to be decided at the
final stage of the present appeals, was as to whether the respondent, a E
slaughter house has been established In violation of location requirement
as mentioned in the Letter of Intent of the Central Government for
issuance of industrial licence to it; that since the location of the company
is in violation of location requirement, and also located within the
prohibition zone the company may be directed to close down its abattoir;
that the State Government, having issued a General Order banning F
location of industries in Medak District, where the unit of the Company
was located, it had wrongly granted permission to the company to run its
abattoir in the same place/district, and therefore, the company must be
directed to shut down its abattoir and the licence issued to it must be
cancelled; that Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) by its G
consent order allowed limit for B.O.D. of 100 mg/Lit. whereas the
•
maximum permissible limit specified in the Environ.meat Protection Rules,
..__
1986 is 30 mg./Lit (Rule 3, Schedule 1, Entry 50.B); and that the consent of
APPCB was in violation of the Act and Rules, and hence it must be quashed;
that the consent order was in derogation of the right of the appellant to
-
information in violation of Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution; that the policy H
548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[20061 3 S.C.R.
A of the Government to encourage slaughter for export is subject to judicial
review as policies which violate constitutional provisions are reviewable; that
the policy violates Art. 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution as it serves to
concentrate profits from cattle wealth in a few hands; that not only this policy
violates Art. 47 of the Constitution as it leads to malnutrition but also Art.
48 which contains a positive command to the State to preserve and improve
B breeds and prohibit slaughter of milch and draught cattle regardless of their
usefulness; that the policy also violates Art. 21 by depriving the society of
the useful benefits of animals; that A.P. Act, 1977 does not mention any
specific age limit under which cattle slaughter is prohibited and therefore
criteria for determination of healthy and useful cattle is subjective and with
C a scope of maneuverability; that the A.P. Animal Husbandry Manual prescribes
the age of slaughterable buffaloes as above IO yea,s; that the buffaloes are
useful even till 15-20 years; and that since the agencies of the State
Government also recommended ban on export of meat, the policy of the Central
Government to export meat deserves to be struck down.
D
Disposing of C.A. Nos. 3964-3968 of 1994 and partly allowing
C.A.Nos. 47ll to 4713 of 1998, the Court
HELD: C.A. Nos. 3964-3968 of 1994:
I. Having been satisfied after holding enquiry, permission and/or
E licence was granted by the authorities concerned to the company for the
purpose of making construction at the site in question and thereafter for
running the slaughter house, it cannot be said that the company was
permitted by the authorities first to make construction of the factory at
the selected site and thereafter to run the slaughter house without being
F satisfied that the conditions for grant of permission and licence were
observed by the company. [559-B-C]
2.1. Sub-section 2 of Section 11 of the Industries (Development &
Regulation) Act by which conditions can be imposed as to the location of
the undertaking by the Central Government, is only directory in nature and
G it would be open to the Central Government to issue licence without giving
any conditions to the company as to the location of the undertaking. It is
significant to note that the legislature in sub-section 2 of Section 11 has used
the word 'may'. [572-G-H; 573-A[
2.2. The appellants have alleged for the first time before this Court
H the fact that the company is located within 13 km. from the standard urban
--
AKHIL BHART GOSEW A SANGH , .. STATE OF A.P.
549
limits of the city of Hyderabad which falls within the prohibited zone. Even A
assuming, distance prohibition would be applicable to the case of the company
in question. This distance prohibition may not stand in the way of the company
from getting an in~ustrial licence for the purpose of setting up the abattoir
at the site in question. It is true that before issuance of licence, Letter of
Intent (LOI) was issued by the Central Government, only wherein the location B
requirement was stated in a printed form. However, it is an admitted position
that the Central Government did not make any query from the company about
the distance between the Village, where the site is located, and the urban limits
of the city of Hyderabad. By issuing the Industrial licence to the Company,
even after knowing the proposed location of the unit, it must be said that the
Central Government waived the location requirements, as mentioned in its C
LOI with regard to this unit. [572-A-B-C-D; 573-A-B[
2.3. Clause (2) of Paragraph 3 of the Notification dated February 3,
1992 which was issued by the State Government as a follow up action of the
Notification dated July 25, 1991 issued by the Central Government under
which permission/licence was required for industries located within 25 Km. D
from the periphery of State urban areas, specified the list of villages falling
within the prohibited zone for which, location approval from the Central
Government wouJd be necessary except for non-polluting industries. In the
present case, the activity of the company does not fall in the category of nonpolluting industries. However, the Notification contains two lists - list A and
List B. List A specified all the villages within the standard urban area of E
Hyderabad. Patancheru which falls within Medak District and is within the
computation of 25 km. from the periphery of the standard urban area of
Hyderabad falls under list B. Therefore, in terms of the distance there was
requirement of obtaining an industrial licence by virtue of the Notification
dated 3rd February 1992 of the State Government. In view of the admitted fact F
that industrial licence was granted by the Central Government and permission
to run the slaughter house was granted by the State Government on the basis
of the Industrial policy of the State Govt., the distance prohibition could not
be considered to be a ground either for cancellation of the industrial licence
or for closing down the unit. [573-D-E-F-G]
2.4. The question on location requirement is always a question of fact
which cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage. However, it is open to the
Central Government and the State Government to consider the distance
prohibition as indicated in the LOI and the Notification and General Order of
G
the State Government for the purpose of shifting the site to some other
alternative place which wou.ld satisfy the location conditions. Subject to the H
550
SUPREME COl.'R r REPORTS
[2006] 3 S.C.R.
A above, this question is answered in favour of the company.
(574-F-G-H; 575-A)
3.1. The standard£ prescribed by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control
Board (APPCB) for the company while issuing its consent for slaughtering
operation to begin, were indeed in violation of the Environment Protection
B Rules in so far as they prescribe a lower standard than was mandated by these
Rules. The State Boards are permitted to prescribe higher standards than
those mentioned in the Rules but are not permitted to lower the standard.
The samples which were collected by the Department of Water and Waste
Water Examination and Institute of Preventive Medicine from the company's
C abattoir indicated violation of the standards prescribed under Environment
Protection Rules. Though the company has installed elaborate anti-pollution
equipment, it would be of no consequence if such equipment is in reality not
bringing down the level of pollution below permissible limits. However, it
cannot be overlooked that the company is continuing its operation for more
than 10 years without any objection from the Andhra Pradesh Pollution
D Control Board (APPCB). Therefore, considering all the circumstances,
directly ordering closure of the company is not called for; rather appropriate
directions may be given by APPCB to the company by rectifying its consent
order in accordance with the Environment Protection Rules. In the event the
company fails to comply with such directions from the APPCB, it would be
E open to the authorities to direct closure of the company. [576-B-C-D-E-F)
F
G
3.2. Section 25 of the Water Act does not confer any right on members
of the public to demand information from the AP PCB prior to issuance of
NOC to the company. Therefore, it cannot be held, that the NOC was vitiated
by reason of non-disclosure of information to the appellant. (578-Fj
3.3. Section 11 of the Water Act clearly provides that no act or
proceeding of APPCB or any committee thereof shall be called in question, it
can safely be concluded that even if there was some defect in the composition
of the AP PCB, that would not invalidate the consent order issued by it.
(579-F, G)
4.1. It cannot be doubted that lhe Krishnan Committee was in favour of
. the establishment of the slaughter house subject to the condition that it should
raise its own cattle as required by it - initially to the extent of half and
ultimately to the full extent. The Committee noted that the operation of the
company would adversely affect the cattle population in and around the region
H unless 50% of the demand of the abattoir was met through breeding of cattle
-
AKHIL BHART GOSEWA SANGH v. STATE OF A.P.
551
by the company itself. However, with the enactment of A.P. Act, the Legislature A
has regulated the slaughter of all bovi;1e animals including buffaloes. For
obtaining a permission from the competent authority to slaughter an animal,
certain conditions are required to be fulfilled. In order to ascertain whether
those conditions are fulfilled by the company or not, Animal Husbandry
Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh has been deputing necessary B
officials to the plant of the company to monitor and undertake anti-mortem
and post-mortem examinations and to implement the provisions of the Act.
[562-E-F; 584-A-B; EJ
4.2. In compliance with the directions of this Court dated March 12,
1997, the Central Government filed a report. From the report, it appears that C
the expert committee of the Central Government had examined all issues, as
directed by this Court. The Committee has correctly taken the figures of a
block period of four years before commencement of operations and again
figures of a block period of four years after commencement of operations by
the company. This is in view of the fact that statistics/figures of one particular
year cannot represent or give a proper picture as the number of cattle can D
very well vary due to natural calamities, large scale migration in view of
urbanization etc. Nothing was found against the committee of the Central
Government that it had gone wrong by proceeding on that basis and it was
justified to take a block period of four years which would certainly indicate
the trend or show whether there was any steep or persistent decline after the E
commencement of operations of the company. The figures/statistics as given
by the Central Government in the report as well as the 16th Quinquennial
and 17th Quinquennial Census would clearly indicate that there is an increase
in the number of buffaloes and there is no reduction or decline much less a
steep decline in the number of buffaloes in the Telangana region.
[584-F-G; 586-D-E-F-Gl F
4.3. It is now well-settled by various decisions of this Court that the
findings of expert bodies in technical and scientific matters would not
ordinarily be interfered with by courts in the exercise of their power under
Art. 226 of the Constitution or by this Court under Art. 136 or 32 of the
Constitution. Moreover, Krishnan Committee has also not recommended G
closure of the unit because of cattle depletion but on the other hand
suggested some measures that may be taken to minimize cattle depletion.
Hence this Court find no reason to show its concern that the functioning of
the abattoir would result in depletion of buffalo population in the Hinterland
of the abattoir. [587-G-H; 589-C-DI
H
552
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2006] 3 S.C.R.
A
Syslopic Laboratories (Pvt.) Lid. v. Dr. Prem Gupta & Ors., [1994)
Suppl. 1SCC160 and K. Vamdevan Nair & Ors. v. UO./. & Ors., [1991) Supp.
2 sec 134, relied on.
5. The Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal
Preservation Act, 1977 (A.P. Act, 1977) does not impose a total ban on
B slaughter of a particular type of bovine animal, whereas in Mirzapur 's case
this Court dealt with the provisions of Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat
Amendment) Act, 1994 which imposes a total ban on slaughter of cow and its
progeny. So far as the A.P. Act, 1977 is concerned, there is no total ban on
slaughter of buffaloes. Therefore, the submission of the appellant cannot at
C all be accepted, as this Court is not concerned with the case of striking down
a particular provision which imposes an absolute prohibition of slaughter of
particular types of bovine animals. [n Mirzapur case, it was, however, not held
that permitting slaughter of bovine cattle by itself is unconstitutional.
(589-G-H; 590-A-BJ
D
State oj Gujarul v. Mirzupur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamal and Ors., (2005)
8 sec 534, followed.
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Ors. v. The Stale of Bihar, [1959) SCR 629,
referred to.
E
6.1. As the policies taken by the Central Govt. and Agricultural and
F
Processed Food Exports Development Authority (APFEDA), which is a
creation of the Parliament for promotion of export and product
development of scheduled products, the question of striking them down
cannot arise. However, it will be always open to the Court to direct the
Central Government or the State Government to renew or review its policy
and to make a fresh policy at any time if they find it to be expedient to do so.
[590-G-H; 591-A]
6.2. It is the case of the Government as well as the abattoir that only
those buffaloes which are unfit for milching, breeding and draught were
G permitted to be slaughtered and are being slaughtered. In the decided case of
Mohd. Hanif Qureshi, the issue was not whether the population of live stock
was increasing or not but whether the population of healthy live stock was
increasing. Although it was sought to be argued by the appellant that due to
slaughter of buffaloes by the company, the population of healthy buffaloes was
declining even then, it must be confirmed that there is no depletion of cattle/
H buffalo wealth due to operation of the company. Apart from that, it appears
-
AKH!L BHART GOSEWA SANGH v. STA TE OF A.P .
553
.._...
from the record that the slaughterhouse of the company was built in accordance A
with European Economic Community Standards and is one of the most modern,
scientific, integrated slaughterhouses in India. If in any way the company is
directed to close down their factory the said action on the part of the Central
Government would be to discourage private entrepreneurs to invest in the meat
industry which will affect the reputation of India in the export market of meat B
(591-E-F-G-H; 592-A(
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Ors. v. The State of Bihar, (1959) SCR 629,
referred to.
6.3. In terms of the interim direction given by this Court on 12th March c
1997, the production of the company was reduced to 50 %. However, the total
export of meat from India did not reduce. For these reasons, this Court is
unable to direct at this stage to strike down the policy regarding meat export
from India to foreign countries. The policy of the Central Government cannot
be easily struck down only because there was slight decline of cattle growth
nor it can be struck down before looking into the entire aspect of the matter. D
It is also well settled that policy decision of the Government cannot be
interfered with or struck down merely on certain factual disputes in the matter.
It is not open to the Court to strike down such decision until and unless a
serious and grave error is found on the part of the Central Government or
the State Government. Such being the position, meat export policy of the E
Central Government cannot be struck down, as it does not violate the
constitutional provisions. (592-A-8-C-D)
6.4. It is also the consistent policy of the Government of India to
encourage export of meat and meat products. The current foreign trade policy
also encourages export of meat provided that a designated veterinary authority F
certifies that it is not obtained from buffalo used for breeding and milching
purposes. It is true that in the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in
the case of State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur it has been held that the protection
envisaged under Art.48 extended even to cattle that had ceased to be milch or
draught, provided they fall within the category of milch and draught cattle. It G
has also been held that cattle forms the backbone of Indian agriculture and
they remain useful th rough out their lives. While dealing with Art. 48 and
.....
48-A of the Constitution read with the fundamental rights, the Constitution
Bench further held that both directive principles and fundamental duties must
be kept in mind while assessing the reasonableness oflegal restrictions placed
upon fundamental rights. However, -striking down a law or policy on the ground H
554
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2006 I 3 S.C.R.
A that it violates a directive principle or fundamental duty was not an issue before
the Constitution Bench of this Court in the said case. It is true that in the
said Constitution Bench decision it has been held that total prohibition of cow
and cow progeny slaughter may be justified. However, it has not been held in
that decision that laws and policies which permit such slaughter are
B unconstitutional. Therefore, the position of law remains that the directive
principles and fundamental duties cannot in themselves serve to invalidate a
legislation or a policy. Moreover, the export policy itself permits only export
of meat from buffaloes that are certified as not useful for milching, breeding
or draught purposes. Therefore, if properly implemented, it cannot be said
that the policy will necessarily have adverse consequences, especially in view
C of the foreign e'.l:change obtained through it. Hence, the argument of the
appellant that the meat export policy, as made by the Central Government must
be struck down, cannot be acceded to. (592-E-F-G-H; 593-A-B-C-DI
State of Gujurat v. Mirzupur, 12005) 8 SCC 534, followed.
D
7. In view of the fact that this Court by an interim order granted stay of
E
the operation of the direction of the High Court for initiating prosecution of
Appellant in C.A. No.3966/1994 under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure read with Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code, and considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to proceed with
the prosecution against the appellant any further. (594-G-HJ
Civil Appeal Nos. 4711to4713of1998:
8. The High Court in the impugned order observed that the
Government and its officers are required to strictly enforce and implement
the provisions of Mysore Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Prevention
F Act being the conclusion made by the High Court in the body of the judgment,
in respect of Question No. I, it is proper at this stage to direct the State
Government and its instrumentalities to strictly enforce and implement the
provisions of Sections 4, 8 to 11 and 18 of the 1964 Act without going into
this question in detail. Hence directed accordingly. (598-B-CI
G
9. According to the appellants, the view taken in the case of Mohd Hanif
Quareshi & Ors. v. State of Bihar vis-a-vis relationship between Directive
Principles and Fundamental Rights requires modification in the light of the
decision in the case of Kesavananda Bharathi v. State of Kera/a and
subsequent decisions. Since the decision of this Court in the case of Mohd.
H Hanif Quareshi & Ors. v. State of Bihar has now been over-ruled on this point
-
AKHILBHARTGOSEWA SANGH"· STATE OF AP
555
by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Mirzapur case, this A
question is decided in favour of the appellants. [598-E-F-G-H]
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur, [2005] 8 SCC 534, followed.
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Ors. v. State of Bihar, [1959] SCR 629 and
Kesava Nanda Bharthi v. State of Kera/a, (1973] 4 SCC 225, referred to.
10. l. In view of the Constitution Bench decision in the case of State of
Gujarat v. Mirzapur overruling the decision of this Court in the case of Mohd
Hanif Quareshi & Ors. v. State of Bihar, it can no longer be held that the
protection recommended by the directive under Art. 48 of the Constitution
B
can be said to be confined only to cows and calves and those animals which C
are presently capable of yielding milk or of doing work as draught cattle.
The aforesaid Constitution Bench decision has clarified that the protection
under Art. 48 of the Constitution also extends to cattle which at one time
were milch or draught but which have ceased to be such. [600-G-H)
10.2. In the case of Mohd. Hanif Quareshi, ·it was held that cattle D
becomes useless after a certain age which is for the Legislature to determine
and thereafter their maintenance is a burden on the economy of the country.
This position has also been negatived by the decision of the Constitution Bench
in the Mirzapur case. Therefore, the interpretation· of Art. 48 of the
Constitution has now been widened and "milch and draught cattle" include
cattle which have become permanently incapacitated to be used for milch and E
draught purposes. Though, this question has been decided in favour of the
appellants, it does not make any material difference to the final decision of
this case. [601-A; F-G)
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur, [2005) 8 SCC 534, followed.
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (1959] SCR 629, F
referred to.
11. Even though the decision in the Mirzapur case supports the
submission of the appellants on the question Nos.2 and 3, the issuance of writ
of Mandamus to compel total prohibition of cattle slaughter would only amount G
to judicial legislation and would encroach upon the powers of the State
Legislature, as held by the High Court, which was the right approach made
by it. That being the position, the question of declaring total ban on slaughter
of cattle cannot be permitted and section 5 of the Act cannot be said to be
ultra vires the Constitution. [602-E-F)
H
556
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2006) 3 S.C.R.
A
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur, (2005) 8 SCC 534, referred to.
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3968/1994.
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 6.4.1993 of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 13062/1992.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 3967/94, 3966/94, 3864-65/94, 4711-4713/98.
N.N. Goswamy, Manmohan, B.S. Banthia, R.K. Joshi, Jasraj Shrimal,
Sushil Kumar Jain, Mrs. Pratibha Jain, Mrs. Sheela Goel (NP), H.M. Singh
C (NP), Dhruv Mehta, Mohit Chaudhry, Ms. Shalini Gupta, S.K. Mehta, Manoj
Saxena, S.K. Mettra, Mohanprasad Meharia, Hemant Sharma, S.N Terdol,
Ms. Divya Roy, Manish Jha, Ms. Bina Gupta, Sunil Kumar Jain, Manish
Kumar, S. Borthakur, Ms. Pinky Anand, D.N. Govurdhan, Ms. Geetha Luthra,
Nikhil Nayyar, Mrs. Urmila Sirur, D.S. Mahra (NP), Mrs. Revathy Raghavan
D (NP), Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy (NP) and Sanjay R. Hegde (NP) for the
appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Al-Kabeer Exports Limited (in short
'Company') is a public company formed for the purpose of carrying on the
E business of processing meat, mainly for export purposes. The company with
a view to establish a slaughter house in Rudraram village, in the Medak
District of the State of Andhra Pradesh applied to the Gram Panchayat,
Rudraram for the requisite permission to construct a factory and other buildings
connected therewith. On 24th March 1989, the Gram Panchayat concerned,
F issued a 'No Objection Certificate' (in short 'NOC'). After obtaining opinion
of the District Medical and Health Officer, Director of Town Planning and
Director of Factories, State of Andhra Pradesh, permission was granted to the
company to run a slaughter house on the selected site on 29th June I 989.
Prior to this permission, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board
G (for short 'A.P.P.C.B.') also issued a 'NOC' on the application of the company
filed on December 30, 1988, subject to certain conditions concerning the
treatment of effiuents and air pollution. In the said NOC, it was inter-alia
stipulated that the company shall obtain a second 'NOC' and a regular
consent under Sections 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of
H Pollution) Act, 1974 from A.P.P.C.B. before commencing regular production.
--
AKHIL BHARTGOSEWASANGH "· STATEOFA.P. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.] 557
The Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh A
also issued a NOC in favour of the company by a letter dated July 13, 1989,
subject to compliance with the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Andhra
Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977 (in
short the 'A.P. Act') and the instructions issued there under. Subsequently,
on I 8th July 1989 the Central Government (Ministry oflndustry) granted a
Letter of Intent (in short 'LO.L ') under the provisions of the Industries B
(Development and Regulation) Act, 195 I (in short '!DR Act') for establishment
of a new industrial undertaking to the company at the selected site mentioned
herein earlier for manufacturing of certain amount of Frozen Buffalo and
Mutton Meat. The LOI was granted, subject to the following
conditions:-"
"(a) Buffaloes to be slaughtered shall be subject to anti-mortem and
post-mortem examination by the concerned authorities.
c
(b) Only old and useless buffaloes shall be slaughtered and for this
purpose, their production and processing shall be subject to continuous D
inspection by the Municipal Authorities, Animal Husbandry and Health
Department of the State Government or any other arrangement that .
the Central or the State Government may evolve for ensuring this.
( c) Slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and buffaloes
male or female, shall be prohibited.
E
(d) The company shall undertake measures for preserving and
improving the breeds of the buffaloes by adoption of suitable animal
husbandry practices in consultation with the State Government
( e) At least 90% production of frozen buffalo meat would be exported F
for a period of ten years which may. be extended by another five
years at the discretion of the Government
(f) Adequate steps shall be taken to the satisfaction of the Government
to prevent air, water and soil pollution. Such anti-pollution measures
to be installed should conform to the effluent and emission standards G
prescribed by the State Government in which the factory of the
industrial undertaking is located.
(g) The new industrial undertaking or the industrial activity for effecting
substantial expansion or for manufacture of new article shall not be
located within:
H
558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2006] < S.C.R.
A
(i) 50 kilometers from the boundary of the standard urban area limits
of any city having a population of more than 25 lakhs according to
the 1981 census; or
(ii) 30 kilometers from the boundary of the standard urban area limits
of any city having a population of more than 15 lakhs but less than
B
25 lakhs according to the 1981 census;
c
(h) In case the location of the industrial undertaking is in no Industry
District, change of location from No Industry District to any other
area including a notified backward area either within the same State
or outside the State will not normally be allowed."
The recommendation was als0 made by the State of Andhra Pradesh to
grant industrial licence to set up abattoir slaughter house at the selected site.
If we are permitted to read the various conditions for grant of LOI
issued by the Central Government carefully, it would be evident that only old
D and useless buffaloes shall be available for slaughtering and their production
and processing shall be subject to continuous inspection by the Municipal
Authorities, Department of Animal Husbandry and Health Department of the
State Government. Clause (c) of the LOI speaks of total prohibition of
slaughtering of cows of all ages and calves of cows and buffaloes. male or
E female. Clause (d) invites the company to undertake measures of prohibiting
and improving the breeds of the buffaloes by adoption of suitable animal
husbandry practices in consultation with the State Government. Clause (e) of
LO.I.