# LAXMI NARAIN MODI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2014] 2 S.C.R. 200
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2014-01-30
- **Bench:** K.S. Radhakrishnan, Pinaki Chandra Ghose
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/laxmi-narain-modi-v-union-of-india-and-others-29842
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and
C Registration of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animal)
Rules, 2000; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter
House) Rules, 2000; Solid Waste (Management and
Handling) Rules, 2000; Environment Protection Act, 1986:
0
By Orders dated 23.8.2012 and 10.10.2012, Supreme
Court directed constitution of State Committees for
supervising and monitoring the implementation of the
provisions of these statutes - By Order dated 27.8.2013
directed State Committees to file Action Taken Report - Held
: Action taken Reports indicated that in many States,
E slaughter houses have been functioning without any licence
and even the licenced slaughter houses are also not following
the various provisions as well as the guidelines issued by the
MoEF - There is no periodical supervision or inspection of
the various slaughter houses functioning in various paits of
F the country - The presence of an experienced Judicial Officer
in the State Committees would give more life and light to the
Committees, who can function as its Convener - The
Convener, so appointed, would see that the Committees meet
quite often and follow and implement the provisions of the Act
G as well as the guidelines issued by the MoEF, which has been
made a part of order dated 27. 8. 2013 - In such circumstances,
request made to the Chief Justices of the various High Courts
in the country to nominate the name of a retired District Judge
H
200
LAXMI NARAIN MODI v. UNION OF INDIA AND
201
OTHERS
for a period of two years as a Convener of the Committee so
A
as to enable him to send the quarterly reports to Supreme
Court.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 309 of 2003.
W.P. (C) No. 330 of 2001.
W.P. (C) No. 688 of 2007.
W.P. (C) No. 44 of 2004.
WITH
S.L.P. (C) No. 14121 of 2009.
B
c
Rakesh K. Khanna, ASG, Manjit Singh, AAG, Pranab
Kumar Mullick, Vijay Panjwani, Seema Rao, Priyanka Sinha,
D
M.R. Shamshad, Shashank Singh, Sapam Biswajit Meitei (for
Ashok Kr. Singh), Upendra Mishra (for Samir Ali Khan), Tarjit
Singh, lrshad Ahmad, M. Yogesh Kanna, A. Santha Kumara,
Pragati Neekhra, Vanshaja Shukla (for Mishra Saurabh),
Jayesh Gaurav (for Gopal Prasad) for the appearing parties.
E
The Order of the Court was delivered by
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. We, in our o.rder dated
23.8.2012, had highlighted the extreme necessity of constituting
State Committees for the purpose of supervising and
F
monitoring the implementation of the provisions of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and
Registration of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals)
Rules, 2000, the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Solid
Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000, the Prevention
G
of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2000 etc.
2. We passed another order on 10.10.2012 and, following
that order, almost all the States and Union Territories h~ve
constituted the State Committees. On 27.8.2013, we passed
a detailed order directing those Committees to implement the
H
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 2 S.C.R.
A
broad framework prepared by the MoEF, which we have
incorporated in the said order. We also directed the various
State Committees to file an Action Taken Report. Few
Committees have filed their Action Taken Reports.
3. We notice that there is no periodical supervision or
B inspection of the various slaughter houses functioning in various
parts of the country. Action Taken Reports would indicate that,
in many States, slaughter houses are functioning without any
licence and even the licenced slaughter houses are also not
following the various provisions as well as the guidelines issued
C by the MoEF, which we have already referred to in our earlier
orders. We feel that the presence of an exP.erienced Judicial
Officer in the State Committees would give more life and light
to the Committees, who can function as its Convener. The
Convener, so appointed, would see tha

## Text

A
B
[2014] 2 S.C.R. 200
LAXMI NARAIN MODI
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 309 of 2003)
JANUARY 30, 2014
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and
C Registration of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animal)
Rules, 2000; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter
House) Rules, 2000; Solid Waste (Management and
Handling) Rules, 2000; Environment Protection Act, 1986:
0
By Orders dated 23.8.2012 and 10.10.2012, Supreme
Court directed constitution of State Committees for
supervising and monitoring the implementation of the
provisions of these statutes - By Order dated 27.8.2013
directed State Committees to file Action Taken Report - Held
: Action taken Reports indicated that in many States,
E slaughter houses have been functioning without any licence
and even the licenced slaughter houses are also not following
the various provisions as well as the guidelines issued by the
MoEF - There is no periodical supervision or inspection of
the various slaughter houses functioning in various paits of
F the country - The presence of an experienced Judicial Officer
in the State Committees would give more life and light to the
Committees, who can function as its Convener - The
Convener, so appointed, would see that the Committees meet
quite often and follow and implement the provisions of the Act
G as well as the guidelines issued by the MoEF, which has been
made a part of order dated 27. 8. 2013 - In such circumstances,
request made to the Chief Justices of the various High Courts
in the country to nominate the name of a retired District Judge
H
200
LAXMI NARAIN MODI v. UNION OF INDIA AND
201
OTHERS
for a period of two years as a Convener of the Committee so
A
as to enable him to send the quarterly reports to Supreme
Court.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 309 of 2003.
W.P. (C) No. 330 of 2001.
W.P. (C) No. 688 of 2007.
W.P. (C) No. 44 of 2004.
WITH
S.L.P. (C) No. 14121 of 2009.
B
c
Rakesh K. Khanna, ASG, Manjit Singh, AAG, Pranab
Kumar Mullick, Vijay Panjwani, Seema Rao, Priyanka Sinha,
D
M.R. Shamshad, Shashank Singh, Sapam Biswajit Meitei (for
Ashok Kr. Singh), Upendra Mishra (for Samir Ali Khan), Tarjit
Singh, lrshad Ahmad, M. Yogesh Kanna, A. Santha Kumara,
Pragati Neekhra, Vanshaja Shukla (for Mishra Saurabh),
Jayesh Gaurav (for Gopal Prasad) for the appearing parties.
E
The Order of the Court was delivered by
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. We, in our o.rder dated
23.8.2012, had highlighted the extreme necessity of constituting
State Committees for the purpose of supervising and
F
monitoring the implementation of the provisions of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and
Registration of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals)
Rules, 2000, the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Solid
Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000, the Prevention
G
of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2000 etc.
2. We passed another order on 10.10.2012 and, following
that order, almost all the States and Union Territories h~ve
constituted the State Committees. On 27.8.2013, we passed
a detailed order directing those Committees to implement the
H
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 2 S.C.R.
A
broad framework prepared by the MoEF, which we have
incorporated in the said order. We also directed the various
State Committees to file an Action Taken Report. Few
Committees have filed their Action Taken Reports.
3. We notice that there is no periodical supervision or
B inspection of the various slaughter houses functioning in various
parts of the country. Action Taken Reports would indicate that,
in many States, slaughter houses are functioning without any
licence and even the licenced slaughter houses are also not
following the various provisions as well as the guidelines issued
C by the MoEF, which we have already referred to in our earlier
orders. We feel that the presence of an exP.erienced Judicial
Officer in the State Committees would give more life and light
to the Committees, who can function as its Convener. The
Convener, so appointed, would see that the Committees meet
D quite often and follow and implement the provisions of the Act
as well as the guidelines issued by the MoEF, which has been
made a part of our order dated 27.8.2013.
4. In such circumstances, we are inclined to request the
Chief Justices of the various High Courts in the country to
E nominate the name of a retired District Judge for a period of
two years as a Convener of the Committee so as to enable him ·
to send the quarterly reports to this Court. First report be sent
within two months. Communicate this order to the Chief Justices
of the various High Courts in the country, along with a c0py of·
F this Court's orders dated 23.8.2012, 10.10.2012 and
27.8.2013. We fix a consolidated remuneration of Rs.
20,000/- per month as honorarium to be paid to the District
Judge (Retd.), which will be borne by the respective State
Governments/Union Territories, as the case may be. Union of
G India and various State Governments have raised no objection
in adopting such course, so that the Committees could function
efficiently and the provisions of the Act and the framework
prepared by the MoEF could be given effect to in its letter and
spirit.
H D.G.
Matter pending.