Holding

The Central Government must consider the Krishnan Committee report and pass appropriate orders on the establishment of the slaughter house, as mandated by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the controversy surrounding the establishment of a mechanised slaughter house (Alkabeer Abattoir) at Rudraram, Medak district, Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner organisations challenged the various permissions granted to the company, arguing that the slaughter house would deplete cattle wealth and cause environmental pollution. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had directed the State Government to prepare a detailed report, which was submitted to the Central Government via the Krishnan Committee. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding the permissions valid, but the Supreme Court found that the Central Government had failed to consider the Krishnan Committee report and pass orders as directed. The Court held that the Central Government must examine the report, address the objections of the Food and Agriculture Department, and record a reasoned decision before the Court. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the Central Government was directed to act within four months.

Issues considered

The Central Government's duty to consider the Krishnan Committee report and pass appropriate orders as directed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Whether the permissions (NOCs) granted to the slaughter house violate the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and related regulations.
Whether the establishment of the slaughter house would lead to depletion of cattle wealth in violation of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977.
The validity of the High Court's dismissal of the writ petitions in light of the expert committee’s findings.
The applicability of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and location restrictions on industrial undertakings.

Legislation cited

Subjects

environment lawslaughter housecattle wealthpollution controlcentral government compliancepublic interest litigationenvironmental impact assessmentanimal welfareindustrial licensing

Judgment

A AKHIL BHARAT GOSEY A SANGH ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

OCTOBER 25, 1994

B [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.]

Environment Law-Setting up of Slaughter House-Permission
granted by State Government-Challenged before High Court-High Court
directs a report to be prepared by State Government-Central Government
directed to pass orders after considering the report-Central Government
c fails to pass any order-Report containing serious reservations about the
Slaughter House-Held, Central Government must consider the report and
pass pppropriate orders as directed by the High Court.

'X', which carried on business of processing and exporting buffalo
as well as goat/sheep meat, applied for permission to the Gram
D Panchayat of Rudraram for setting up a slaughter house at Rudraram.
The Gram Panchayat granted "No Objection Certificate" to 'X'. 'X'
was also granted "No Objection Certificate" by the Andhra Pradesh
Pollution Control Board and the Animal Husbandry Department and
letter of intent for manufacturing meat by the State Government.
These permissions were subject to certain conditions which were to be
E
followed by 'X'. One such condition was that only old and useless
buffaloes would be slaughtered and that no cows or calves would be
slaughterGd.

On July 24, 1990, by a notice under Section 131 (3) of the Andhra
F Pradesh Gram PanchayatAct, 1964, the Executive Officer ofthe'Gram
Panchayat suspende<! the "No Objection Certificate" granted in favour
of 'X' on the ground of law and order problem. The order of the
Executive Officer was ~hallenged by 'X' by way of a writ petition.
Subsequently, 'X' withdrew the writ petition and filed a revision
petitiou before the State Government challenging the order of the
G Executive Officer. The revision petition of 'X' was allowed by the
concerned Minister on September 15, 1990 and 'X' was permitted to
carry on construction of the slaughter house.

H
Two writ petitions we~e filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
by certain organisations/individuals challenging the validity of order
passed by the State Government on September 15, 1990. Single Judge
-
146
A. B. GOSEVA SANGH v. STATE OF A. P. 147

admitted the writ petitions and suspended the order of the State A
Government. Against this interim order, both the State Government as
well as 'X' preferred writ appeals. During the hearing of the said
appeals, the Division Bench heard the main writ petition itself and
disposed it of on November 16, 1991 with certain directions. The
Division Bench directed the State Government to prepare a detailed
report regarding the likely effect of setting up of the slaughter house on B
the environment and the cattle wealth in the concerned area. The
report of the State Government was to be forwarded to the Central
Government which was directed to consider the report and pass
appropriate orders in relation to the establishment of the slaughter
house. ·
c
Pursuant to the order of the Division Bench dated November 16,
1991 the State Government constituted a committee known as
'Krishnan Committee'. Before the Committee, the Food and
Agriculture Department of the State Government objected to the
establishment of the slaughter house on the ground that it would lead to
depletion of already declining cattle wealth. The Food and Agriculture D
Department further pointed out that as there was an embargo on
slaughter of healthy productive animals as well as calves. below three
years of age, 'X' would be compelled to slaughter only sick and old
animals which would adversely affect its exports. Therefore, there
would be tendency to maim animals or render them useless and non- E
productive circumventing the law. The Department was of the opinion
that establishment of slaughter house would adversely affect soil
fertility and marginal farmers. The Krishnan Committee, in its report
accepted the apprehension of the Department as well founded. The
Committee recommended that 'X' should raise its own feed cattle
initially to the extent of not less than 50 percent of its capacity and F
eventually to the extent of 100 percent of its capacity. In the alternative,
the Committee recommended, a modern slaughter house may be set up
taking over the plant of 'X' which would meet the meat requirement of
the area and the unhygenic private slaughter houses may be closed
down.
G
The Chief Secretary of Andhra Pradesh, forwarded the report of
the Krishnan Committee to the Central Government in pursuance of
the order of the High Court with the note that depletion of cattle wealth
is a disputable area as the Committee has not considered the total
figure of cattle wealth in Andhra Pradesh but only the district figures.
The n_ote further recorded that huge investment has been made by 'X' H
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A in setting up the slaughter house and the clearance had been given to
'X' by the Food and Agriculture Department. The Central
Government, even though it received the report of the Krishnan
Committee along with the note of the Chief Secretary, did not pass any
order in relation to the establishment of the slaughter house and it
merely forwarded the report to Andhra- Pradesh Pollution Control
B Board for appropriate action.

Several writ petitions were filed before the High Court challenging
inter alia, the "No Objection Certificate" and the permissions granted
to 'X'. The High Court by its order dated April 6, 1993 dismissed the
writ petitions holding that the State Government was justified in
c granting permission for the establishment of the slaughter house. The
High Court while dismissing the writ petitions relied upon the opinion
of the Animal Husbandry Department, the 'No Objection Certificate'
issued and the conditions imposed on 'X' by the Andhra Pradesh
Pollution Control Board.

D On appeal to this Court, it was -

HELD : 1. The Krishnan Committee report makes it clear that the
Committee has agreed with the objections raised by the Food and
Agriculture Department to the effect that the establishment and
operation of the respondent-slaughter house is likely to seriously and
E adversely affect the cattle wealth of the State in general and of the
surrounding districts in particular. It has also pointed out that since the
meat and meat products obtained at the said slaughter house are meant
only for export, the slaughter house would necessarily go in for healthy
and useful cattle rather than confining itself to old and infirm cattle. It
has also pointed out that the attractive prices offered by the slaughter
F house would induce the poor farmers of the area to sell their cattle and
that in the circumstances it is idle to expect the slaughter house to
confine the killing only to aged and infirm cattie. It cannot be said that
the several objections raised by the Food and Agriculture Department,
which have found favour with the said Expert Committee are not
G relevant or are not germane to the issue of establishment and operation
of the slaughter house. (163-G, H, 164 A, B, C)

2. The rejection of Krishnan Committee report by the High Court
really amounts to slurring over the main recommendation of the said
report. Moreover, the learned Judges have not dealt with the failure of
H the Central Government to consider the said report and pass
A. B. GOSEYA SANGH v. STATE OF A. P. 149

appropriate orders pursuant to the directions of the High Court in its A
judgment dated November 16, 1991. The learned Judges have observed
in the said judgment that it is not possible for the Court to go into
conflicting report of experts and that therefore, they should leave the
matter for the judgment of the Government. This observation again
does not take into account the directions made by the said High Court
in jts judgment dated November 16, 1991. They have also observed that B
the Director of Animal Husbandry has given his opinion or revised
opinion, as the case may be, after taking into consideration the
objections of the Food and Agriculture Department. The fact remains
that this reconsideration by Director, Animal Husbandry Department
is said to have taken place sometime in 1990, whereas even in 1992, the
Food and Agriculture Department was yet persisting with its views C
before the Krishnan Committee. (165-F, G, H, 166 A)

3.1. It is unfortunate that the Central Government has not looked
into the relevant aspect of the Krishnan Committee report and has
chosen to simply forward the report to the Andhra Pradesh Pollution
Control Board. According to the judgment of the High Court dated D
November 16, 1991, it was for the Central Government to consider the
contents of the Krishnan Committee report and take a decision in the
matter of establishment and operation of the said slaughter house. It
cannot but be said that the Central Government has singularly failed to
comply with the directions of the High Court. (164-D, E) E

3.2. The endorsement of the Chief Secretary, which is at variance
with the Krishnan Committee report is not only bald but is
unsupported by any facts and figures. It appears to be the mere ipsi
dixit of the Chief Secretary. (164-G, 165 A)
F
4. The Central Government should look into all relevant aspeds, as
directed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its judgment dated
November 16, 1991, forthwith and record its opinion before a final
decision is taken in the matter. The decision of the Central Government
shall be recorded in a reasoned proceeding, which shall be placed
before this Court. (166 H, 167 A) G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 3968 of
1994 etc. etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.93 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.P. No. 10454of1992. H
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A U.N. Bahawal, Jasraj Shrishrimal, B.S. Banthia and H.M. Singh for the
Appellants.

V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, Ashok H. Desai, Soli J.
Sorabjee, Gopal Subramaniam, E. Manohar, J.D. Jain, Dhruv Mehta, Aman
Vachhar, S.K. Mehta, Nikhil Nayyar, T.V.S.N. Chari, C.V.S. Rao and
B Hemant Sharma for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. These appeals concern the establishment,
working and continuance of an abattoir (mechanised slaughter house) by
c name 'Alkabeer Abattoir' situated in Rudraram village in Patancheru
Manda! of Medak District. Of the five appeals before us, Civil Appeal Nos.
3966 and 3967 of 1994 are preferred against the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated April 6, 1993 in Writ
Petition No. 13062 of 1992, Civil Appeal No. 3968 of 1994 arises from
Writ Petition No. 10454 of 1992 disposed of on the same day, i.e. April 6,
D 1993, while the Civil Appeal Nos. 3964 and 3965 of 1994 arise from the
order of the High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 896 and 899of1993 preferred
against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.M.P. No. 9367of1993
and W.P.M.P. No. 94S-of 1993 in Writ Petition No. 7483 of 199'3. As the
facts stated hereinafter would disclose, the said slaughter house has been
surrounded by controversy from the very inception. Indeed, it was sought to
E be established earlier at Bhiwandi in Maharasthra. Some progress was also
made towards installation but on account of opposition from the local
people and other organisations, that location was abandoned and the present
location selected.

The respondent-Alkabeer Exports Limited is a public company formed
F for the purpose of carrying on the business of processing meat mainly for
·export purposes. With a view to establish the factory in Rudraram village,
the respondent-company applied to the Gram Panchayat, Rudraram for t!iP.
requisite permission to construct the factory and other buildings connected
therewith. In the first instance, the Gram Panchayat issued a 'No Objection
Certificate' on March 24, 1989 and after obtaining the opinion of the
G District Medical and Health Officer, Director of Town Planning and
Director of Factories, it granted the permission on June 29, 1989.

On April 13, 1989 the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (for
short' A.P.P.C.B. ') issued a 'No Objection Certificate' (for short 'NOC') on
the basis of the respondent's application dated December 30, 1988. The
H NOC was granted subject to certain conditions concerning the treatment of
A. B. GOSEVA SANGH v. STATE OF A. P. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 151

effluents and air pollution. It was stipulated that the respondent shall obtain A
a second NOC from the A.P.P.C.B. before commencing trial production in
the factory and to obtain a regular consent under Sections 25 and 26 of the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 before commencing
regular production.

On July 18, 1989 the Government of India in the Ministry of Industry B
granted a Letter of Intent (for short 'LOI') under the provisions of the
Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 for the establishment
of a new industrial undertaking at Rudraram village for manufacturing
14,775 tonnes of Frozen Buffalo Meat, 225 tonnes of Frozen Buffalo Meat
·value added products, 3240 Tonnes of Frozen Mutton Meat and 360 tonnes
of Frozen Mutton Meat value added products per annum. The LOI was C
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.
D
(b) Only old and useless buffaloes shall be slaughtered and
for this purpose, their production and processing shall be
subject to continuous inspection by the Municipal
Authorities, Animal Husbandry and Health Department of
the State Government may evolve for ensuring this.
E
(c) Slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and
buffaloes male or female, shall be prohibited.

(d) You shall . undertake measures for preserving and
improving the breeds of the buffaloes by adoption of
suitable animal husbandry practices in consultation with the p
State Government.

(e) At least 90% production of frozen buffalo meat would
be exported for a period of ten years which may be
extended by another five years at the discretion of the
Government. G
(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 fulfillment and emission standards prescribed in which
the factory of the industrial undertaking is located. H
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A (g) The new industrial undertaking or the industrial activity
for effecting substal!tial expansion or for manufacture of
new article shall not be located within :

(a) 50 kilometers from the boundary of the standard urban
area limits of any city having a population of more than 25
B lakhs according to the 1981 census; or

(b) 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 25 lakhs according to the 1981 census;

C (h) In case the location of the industrial undertaking is in
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."

D The Government of Andhra Pradesh too recommended to the Central
Government for grant of industrial licence to the respondent.

On August 28, 1991 the Agriculture and Processed Food Products
Export Development ·Authority (for short 'A.P.E.D.A. ') informed the
respondent that the Government of India was keen to promote the export of
E meat and meat products as part of its export drive.

The Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Andhra
Pradesh has also issued a NOC in favour of the respondent, through his
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
F
Animal Preservation Act, 1977 (for short 'A.P. Act of· 1977') and the
instructions issued thereunder.

On the basis of the above perm1ss1ons; the respondent-company
commenced the construction and installation of the building and machinery.
G After the construction had proceeded to some extent, the Executive Officer
of the Gram Panchayat, Rudraram issued a notice dated July 24, 1990 to the
respondent under Section 131 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat
Act, 1964 suspending with immediate effect the permission granted for
construction of the factory building and other buildings and calling upon
the respondent to stop all further construction until further orders. This
H order was issued in view of the law and order problem said to have arisen
A. B. GOSEVA SANGH v. STATE OF A. P. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 153

on account of the agitation by several organisations opposed to the A
establishment of the slaughter house.

The respondent filed a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court
questioning the said order of the Executive Officer. Certain organisations
opposed to the establishment of the slaughter house applied for and were
impleaded as respondents to the said writ petition. The respondent, B
however, withdrew the said writ petition and filed a revision petition before
the Government under Section 232 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat
Act questioning the order of suspension passed by the Executive Officer.
The organisations which had impleaded themselves in the aforesaid writ
petition appeared before the Government and filed their objections. All of
them were heard by the concerned Minister on September 13, 1990 who C
allowed the revision by his order dated September 15, 1990. Not only the
order of the Executive Officer was set aside, the period of construction was
also extended for one more year with effect from June 29, 1990.

Questioning the Government order dated September 15, 1990, two writ
petitions were filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, being Writ Petition D ,
Nos. i3763 and 13808 of 1990 by certain organisations/individuals. A
learned Single Judge admitted the writ petitions and suspended the
operation of the Government's Order dated September 15, 1990 pending
the writ petitions. Against the said interim order, both the State Government
and the respondent-company filed four writ appeals which were admitted E
by a Division Bench and the interim order made by the learned Single
Judge stayed. When the writ appeals came up for final hearing, the Division
Bench heard the main writ petitions themselves and disposed them of under
its judgment and order dated November 16, 1991 along with another Writ
Petition No. 10413 of 1991. Several contentions were urged before the
Division Bench, after considering which the Division Bench disposed of the F
said writ appeals and writ petitions with the following directions:

" ..... However, we direct that the State Government shall
prepare a detailed report regarding the water, air and
enviroment pollution, if any, as at present in Rudraram and
surrounding villages of Patancheru Manda!, Medak District G
having regard to the provisions of the Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention
and Control Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 and the rules made thereunder, the
likely effect of the setting up of the mechanised slaughter
house at Rudraram village on the prevailing environment, H
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A and also its likely effect on the cattle wealth in the area,
after considering the representations which the petitioners
in these writ petitions and other interested parties may
submit in writing in this regard. The petitioners herein and
other interested persons shall submit the representations and
other supporting material in writing to the State
B Government within four weeks from today. The State
Government shall prepare and submit a detailed report to
the Central Government within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of the copy of this judgment. On receipt of the
report, the Central Government shall consider the same,
having regard to the provisions of the Water (Prevention
c and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention
and Control Pollution) Act, 1981, the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 and the Industries (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1951 and pass appropriate orders in
relation to the establishment of the mechanised slaughter
house (abattoir) at Rudraram village, Patancheru Manda!,
D Medak District, Andhra Pradesh, within eight weeks from
the date of receipt of the report."
(emphasis added)

The above order has become final, not having been questioned by
E anyone before this Court. Nor is it disputed that this order has to be carried
out and implemented by all concerned authorities.

Pursuant to the aforesaid directions made by the Andhra Pradesh High
Court, the State Government constituted a Committee known as "Krishnan
Committee" for examining and reporting on the matters referred to in the
F order of the High Court. The Committee examined all the relevant aspects
relating to the establishment of the said slaughter house. It went into the
questions relating to environment as well as into the impact of the slaughter
house on the rural economy, in particular, the apprehensions expressed by
the Food and Agriculture Department of the Government of Andhra
Pradesh on the depletion of cattle. Having regard to the importance of this
G report, it is necessary to notice its contents briefly.

The Committee was of the view that the slaughter house will ultimately
have the capacity of consuming 500 buffaloes and 2000 sheep/goat per day.
In other words, it would require about 1.5 to 2 lakhs buffaloes in addition to
seven lakhs sheep/goat every year. After noticing the several permissions
H granted by the various authorities for establishment of the said slaughter
A. B. GOSEVA SANGH v. STATE OF A. P. [.IEEVAN REDDY, J.] 155

house, the committee set out in brief the contentions urged by several A
objecting individuals/organisations as well as the submissions made by the
respondent-company. On the question of depletion of cattle wealth, it noted
the views of several organisations and departments of Government, of
which the views of the Food and Agriculture department were noted in
extenso in view of their relevance and supporting material. The Food and
Agriculture department pointed out to the Committee that the cattle B
population in the State of Andhra Pradesh has been showing a declining
trend over the years. It pointed out with reference to facts and figures that
the decline was quite considerable. In particular, it pointed out that the
decline in cattle wealth in Medak District (in which district the said
slaughter house is located) was very steep. It further pointed out that 2.0 I
lakhs buffaloes are being slaughtered every year in the existing slaughter C
houses and that the commencement of operations in the respondent's
slaughter house would mean a perennial loss of 5.14 lakhs cattle per
annum. It pointed out: "the argument that animals would be brought from
the neighbouring State cannot be depended upon. Several neighbouring
State like Kamataka, Maharashtra etc., have banned transport of animals
from their States. In effect, therefore, the hinterland of the Mesrs. Alkabir D
Exports Limited would be the adjacent districts of Telangana in general and
Medak District in particular." It pointed out further, "as it is, these districts
are suffering with decline in Buffalo population ranging from 6.5 to 30%
annually as can be seen from the following table: ........... ". After referring to
the particulars in support of the above statement, the department submitted: E
"the attractive rates offered by such export companies would further siphon
off animals from these districts." It again gave facts and figures pertaining
to several districts in Andhra Pradesh and reiterated its submission that the
attractive prices offered by the respondent's slaughter house would result in
depletion of useful cattle including milch cattle. The department made the
following further significant submission: F
"Under the provisions of Animal· Husbandry Manual and
Cow Slaughter Act, no healthy productive animal can be
permitted to be slaughtered. Calves below three years of age
are not allowed to be slaughtered. Similarly healthy animais
from 3 to 10 years are not allowed to the slaughtered. This G
means only sick and old animals should be permitted to be
killed and importing countries would not normally accept
beef from these animals. To ensure quality beef, the
company would be forced to circumvent provisions of the
rules and Act by buying inter-calving dry females and
dubbing them non-productive. The likely tendency to maim H
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A the animals and render them useless and non-productive to
escape from the provisions of Rules and Act would also be
encouraged. Without cutting comers and effectively
violating the provisions of the Rules and Act, the Company
cannot hope to obtain adequate input material for the plant
under construction."
B
and then added:

"If such huge slaughter houses such as Al kabeer is allowed
to be put up, there would virtually be no sufficient animals
for ploughing, milk production and other purposes, besides
c adversely affecting soil fertility due to loss of urine and
dung in the hinterland districts. Small and marginal farmers
would be hit badly, as the buffaloes for ploughing
operations would not be available at reasonable rates."

Dealing with the NOC granted by the Animal Husbandry department to
D the said slaughter house, the Food and Agriculture department submitted
that the said certificates was issued by the Animal Husbandry department
"without consulting the Food and ·Agriculture Department and without
examining in detail the deleterious effect of the setting up of the Al kabeer
plant with such enormous capacity and economic consequence thereof." It
stated emphatically that "in the interest of cattle and overall economic
E development of agrarian economy, the proposed plant cannot be allowed to
be set up."

After setting out all the above facts, the committee proceeded to record
its own views in the matter. It noted that while some fundamentalist
organisations are opposing the establishment of the said slaughter house on
F account of their religious and sentimental opposition to the ,sfaughter of
animals, the Government of India and the Government of An'dhfa·Pradesh
have all permitted the setting up of this plant. So far as pollution of air and
water is concerned, it opined that with due observance of the. safeguards
stipulated by the several concerned departments including APPCB and
regular supervision, it can be kept within reasonable limits. But so far as the
G depletion of the cattle wealth is concerned, the Krishnan Committee upheld
the objections of the Food and Agriculture Department in the following
words:

"There are valid reasons for believing that this argument is
substantially valid. To start with the capacity of the plant is
H so large that with the existing cattle wealth and possible
A. B. GOSEVA SANGHv. STATE OF A. P. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 157

increases thereto, will not be able to provide adequate input A
to this factory for more than a year or two unless drastic
action is taken to increase the cattle wealth in the
surrounding areas. The Food and Agriculture Department
have already brought out the fact that the cattle wealth in
the surrounding areas as also in the other parts of the State
is gradually going down and the cattle available for B
slaughter is around l.76 lakhs animals per year. As against
this, the existing slaughter houses in the State are already
slaughtering animals to the extent of 2.0 I lakhs, with the
result that with the level of existing cattle wealth, there is no
additional input likely to be available to cater to the huge
capacity of the plant being established at Rudraram. Food C
and Agriculture Department has also brought out the fact
that it will be difficult for the factory to adhere to the
existing regulations of the provisions of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act and Prohibition of Cow Slaughter
Act, 1977 and every effort would be made to circumvent
the provisions of this Act so that adequate input supply is D
maintained (for the?) factory. It was reported in the
newspapers sometime ago that a similar factory established
in Goa, after operation for one or two years have to
drastically stop their operations for want of adequate input
material."
E
Having expressed the above opinion, the Krishnan Committee made
the following recommendation as a condition for allowing the
establishment of the slaughter house:

"In the circumstances it is essential to insist on the
Company to ensure that there is an effective programme to F
raise feed cattle on their own initiative for not less than 50%
of the capacity so that the impact on the surrounding area is
limited to this extent atleast. Further increases in capacity
can be considered only if the company increases its own
feed cattle. Eventually the Company will have to produce G
feed cattle for their entire extent of operations so as to
minimise the impact on the existing cattle wealth.

If this alternative is not acceptable to the Company, the
proposal mentioned by the Food and Agriculture
Department of starting a modern abattoir with an . H
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A investment of about Rs. 15 crores may be diverted to take
over this plant and eventually the unhygenic private
slaughter houses in and around the city and government
slaughter houses can be closed and the meat requirement for
the city may be met from this factory."

B It is thus evident that Krishnan Committee was in favour of the
establishment of the said slaughter house only on the condition that it raises
on its own the cattle required by it - initially to ·the extent of half and
ultimately to the full extent. And if the respondent was not willing to or not
in a position to do it, it was not to be allowed and its capacity utilised to
meet the existing requirements by diverting the cattle from the existing
C slaughter houses. In other words, the existing slaughter houses, big and
small, government and private, were to be closed down and the
respondent's slaughter house. utilised to meet the present domestic
requirements.

Before forwarding this report to the Central Government, however, the
D Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh appended the
following note (the note appears to have been made in August, 1992):

"Depletion of cattle wealth is a disputable area. No figures
have been given as a total figure for A.P. to substantiate the
claim. Looking at district figures alone is not enough. In
E any case these should have been considered when approvals
were sought for. F and A Dept. has also cleared the project.
From PCB's point of view the over all measures taken are
adequate except for a few minor additions. The company is
supposed to have invested 40 crores in the project and
therefore would have carefully studied data on cattle and
F animal availability. Government of India may be given the
report prepared with this additional comments."

It is admitted that the Central Government received the aforesaid report
of the Krishnan Committee but it is a matter of regret that no attention
appears to have been paid to it or to the directions aforesaid made by the
G Andhra Pradesh High Court. All that appears to have happened is that the
Central Government forwarded the report to the APPCB for appropriate
action. We repeatedly asked the learned counsel appearing for the
Government of India to show us the precise order made or the proceeding
issued by the Government of India on the said report but none has been
H forthcoming. All that is stated is that the Government of India forwarded
A. B. GOSEVA SANGH v. STATE OF A. P. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 159

the matter to the APPCB for appropriate action. We must say that this was A
certainly not the way to treat a report based upon such wealth of material,
most of which was supplied by the Food and Agriculture Department of the
Government of Andhra Pradesh - besides the glaring circumstance that it is
a clear case of violation of the directions made by the High Court. The
Government of India should have considered the fact that the Food and
Agriculture Department of the State Government on one side and the B
Animal Husbandry and Industries Departments of that Government on the
other were at logger heads - that while the Food and Agriculture department
was opposing the very establishment of the plant/slaughter house, the
Animal Husbandry department and the Industries department were very
much in favour of its establishment and that such a situation called for a
serious consideration of the issue as indeed directed by the High Court. It C
may be pointed out that Gevernment of India was a party to the judgment
of the High Court aforesaid. But before we say more on this aspect, it
would be appropriate to set out the facts leading to the present appeals.

Writ Petition No. 6704of1991 was filed by two environmentalists for
issuance of a writ, order or direction restraining the Hyderabad D
Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (HMWSSB) and others
from supplying/selling water to the said slaughter house. By order dated
May 27, 1992 an interim order was made by the High Court restraining the
HMWSSB from considering proposals for sale of water to the said factory.

Dr. Kishan Rao (the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3966 of 1994) filed E
Writ Petition No. 8193 of 1992 questioning the grant of NOC by the
APPCB. The High Court made an interim order to the effect that the NOC
granted by the APPCB shall be subject to further orders in the said matter.

Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh (appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3964 of
1994) filed Writ Petition No. 10454 of 1992 against the State of Andhra F
Pradesh and others questioning the grant of permission for the trial run of
the said slaughter house.

Writ Petition No. 13062 of 1992 was filed by Dr. Kishan Rao along
with Smt. Satyavani questioning the various permissions granted for the
establishment of the said slaughter house. G
All these writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by the
High Court under its judgment and order dated April 6, 1993. The Division
Bench was of the opinion that inasmuch as the LOI granted by the
Government of India and the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Preservation
of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977 permit slaughtering H
\

\.

160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A of only useless cattle and because maintenance of useless cattle involves a
wasteful drain on the nation's meagre cattle feed resources, the Animal
Husbandry department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and the
Government of India were fully justified in granting the permission for the
establishment of the slaughter house. The Division Bench noted that "in
view of the agitation by some organisations, the matter was re-examined
B and fresh discussions were made between the Animal Husbandry
Department and Secretary, Food and Agricultu:-e department and Secretary,
Industries Department on the question of State's slaughter policy and that
on a re-examination of the issues, the Director of Animal Husbandry
observed on December 21, 1990 that the establishment of the said slaughter
house would not really result in any depletion of the cattle in the State."
c The Bench stated further that on September 28, 1991 the issue was again
considered by the Director of Animal Husbandry, who reiterated his
opinion expressed on December 21, 1990 and that the Andhra Pradesh
Cabinet which considered the matter later did not express a different view.
In this view of the matter, the Bench opined that the establishment of the
respondent-slaughter house would have only "negligible" effect on the
D cattle growth in the State. The Bench also dealt with the environmental
aspc.cts and found that the safeguards stipulated by the APPCB and other
authorities are sufficient to ensure against pollution of air or water. ·fhe
Division Bench also referred to the fact that the APPCB has issued a second
NOC on October I, 1992 subject again to safeguards sufficient to protect
the environment. The Bench concluded that all the concerned authorities
E have granted the requisite permissions after duly considering all the
relevant circumst~nces and that, therefore, there are no grounds for
interfering with the establishment and operation of the slaughter house.
While dismissing the writ petitions, the High Court directed the prosecution
of Dr. Kishan Rao for certain mis-statements made by him. Civil Appeal
Nos. 3964, 3965, 3966, 3967 and 3968 of 1994 are preferred against this
F
judgment.

Writ Petition No. 10454 of 1992 filed by Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh
was also disposed of by the same Division Bench on the same day but
under a separate order. The main contention in this writ petition was that
G the State Government had not complied with the directions made by the
High Court in its judgment and order dated November 16, 199 l aforesaid
and that until and unless the State Government sends its report in.
accordance with the said directions and the Central Government takes a
'·
decision thereon the respondent-company be restrained from functioning. It
was also contended that according to the first NOC granted by APPCB, the
H respondent-factory had to obtain a second NOC from the Board and the
A. B. GOSEVA SANGHv. STATE OF A. P. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 161

second NOC was to be issued only after considering air and water pollution A
aspects. It was also contended that the Board has failed to discharge its
duties and is allowing the slaughter house to work contrary to law. It was
also submitted by the writ petitioner that the effluent standards fixed for the
said slaughter house by the APPCB are contrary to the relevant provisions
of the Act and Rules. Several other contentions were also urged, all of
which were negatived by the Division Bench. It held that the respondent- B
factory has indeed obtained a second NOC from the APPCB and that in
view of the amendment to the Environmental Protection Act in the year
1991, the pollution standards fixed for the respondent-factory are not
inconsistent with the provisions of law. So far as compliance with the
directions of the High Court dated November 16, 1991 is concerned, the
Bench stated that it has already dealt with that aspect in their judgment in C
the other writ petitions delivered on the same day and hence, need not deal
with it over again. Civil Appeal No. 3968 of 1994 is preferred against this
judgment.

Civil Appeal Nos. 3964 and 3965 of 1994 are directed against the D
orders of another Division Bench allowing the writ appeal preferred by the
' respondent (Alkabeer Exports Limited) under clause (15) of the Letters
•' Patent and setting aside the Interlocutory Order passed by a learned Single
Judge in W.P.M.P. No. 9367 of 1993 in Writ Petition No. 7483 of 1993.
The learned Single Judge had directed the APPCB to furnish copies of
certain reports along with annexures to the writ petitioner and to keep in E
view the conditions imposed by it in the first and second NOCs while
disposing of the application of the respondent-factory for permission to
commence production. The Division Bench held that the directions made
by the learned Single Judge were not called for at that stage of proceedings.
It held further : ·
F
"Prima facie, having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case, we are of the view that the decision taken by the
Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board at its meeting held
on 24th August, 1993 to grant consent in favour of Mis.
Alkabeer Exports Limited subject to the conditions laid
down by them, shall be given effect to and it shall be in G
force pending disposal of Writ Petition No. 7483of1993.

We make it clear that the writ petition shall be disposed of ·
on merits in accordance with law, without taking into
consideration any observation made by us in this
H
- -- judgment."
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Sri Bachawat, learned counsel for the appellants in this appeals, urged
the following contentions:

(l) That the State Government and in particular the Central
Government have not complied with the directions made by the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in its judgment and order dated November 16, 1991
B fully. Though the State Government has constituted a Committee and the
(
Committee has made its recommendations, the Central Government has not \

taken any action on the basis of the said report. The mere forwarding of the
said report by the Central Government to the APPCB cannot be said to be
the compliance with the aforesaid directions of the High Court. The report
of the Krishnan Committee had in effect recommended against the
C establishment and continuance of the said slaughter house unless certain
important considerations are met and satisfied. Admittedly, no steps have
been taken by the respondent-company for complying with the said
conditions.

(2) The granting of second NOC and the granting of consent under
D Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act by the
APPCB is in total negation of the statutory provisions governing it and (
amounts to a failure on its part to discharge the duties placed on it by law. \
i

(3) The location of the factory within the prohibited perimeter of the
Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration is contrary to law. The area wherein the
E said slaught~r house has been located is already affected badly by air and
water pollution, as is disclosed by the report submitted by the NEERI
pursuant to the orders of this court. The respondent-slaughter house was
permitted to be established in the said area by the relevant authorities
without taking into consideration the said highly relevant circumstances.
The slaughter housP is bound to further aggravate the already vitiated 1::.:.._---
F environment.

(4) The composition of the APPCB is contrary to the statutory
provi'iions of the Act. The Board is not validly constituted and, therefore,
the NOCs and the consent given by such Board are equally invalid in law.

G Sri Gopal Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent,
Alakbir Exports. Ltd., disputed the correctness of the various contentions
urged by the learned counsel for the appellants. Sri Subramaniam submitted
that the respondent-slaughter house has been established strictly in

H
accordance with law and after obtaining permission from all the concerned
authorities and that the safeguards stipulated by the Central Government,
APPCB and the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal
r
.>
I

A. B. GOSEYA SANGH v. STATE OF A. P. (JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 163

Preservation Act, 1977 are more than adequate td"ensure against pollution A
of atmosphere and depletion of cattle wealth. Learned counsel submitted
that the slaughter house is meant only for infinn and useless cattle, which
are merely a burden on the scarce fodder resources of this country. The
learned counsel emphasised that with a view to maintain export quality
standards of a very high order, the respondent-company has not only
installed the latest equipment but has also provided a very effective effluent B
treatment plant. Counsel submitted that a number of veternary doctors were
pennanently posted at the slaughter house with a view to check the arrivals
and reject those which did not confonn to the prescribed specifications. He
also submitted that there has been a proper and substantial compliance with
the directions made by the High Court in its order dated November 16,
1991 and that the objections against the slaughter house is neither bonafide C
nor genuine but are born· out of religious and sentimental reasons which
have been repeatedly rejected by this court in several earlier decisions.
Counsel also submitted that the respondent-factory is adhering scrupulously·
to the standards prescribed by the APPCB, that it has planted thousands of
trees and that the water coming out of ETP is used fully for watering those D
plants and trees. He submitted that not a drop of water is going out of the
area of the respondent.

We may reiterate that the learned Standing Counsel for the Central
Government has not placed the proceeding of the Central Government to
disclose the action taken on the basis of the Krishnan Committee reports. E
All that the learned counsel stated was that the Central Government
examined the report and sent it to the APPCB for appropriate action. In its
counter filed in Writ Petition No. 13062of1992 in the High Court, all that
is stated regarding the likely effect on cattle population is this: "10. Overall
availability of animals for meat production has been looked into and special
conditions in this regard have been imposed as part of the L.0.1. and these
conditions would adequately ensure non-depletion of animals." Even in F
Writ Petition No. I 0454 of 1992, no avennents have been made disclosing
the manner in which the Krishnan Committee report was dealt with.

The Krishnan Committee report makes it clear that the Committee has
agreed with the objections raised by the Food and Agriculture department G.
to the effect that the establishment and operation of the respondent-
slaughter house is likely to seriously and adversely affect the cattle wealth
of the State in general and of the surrounding districts in particular. The
Food and Agriculture department sought to support its objections by
adducing particulars of the cattle population ~f the State and of the
Telangana area in particular. It has also pointed ~t that since the meat and H
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A meat products obtained at the said slaughter house are meant mainly for
export, the slaughter house would necessarily go in for health:v and useful
cattle rather than confining itself to old and infirm cattle. It has also pointed
out that the attractive prices offered by the slaughter house would induce
the poor farmers of the area to sell their cattle and that in the circumstances
it is idle to expect the slaughter house to confine the killing only to aged
B and infirm cattle. Indeed, it has suggested that to start with, half the
requirement of the slaughter house must be directed to be met from its own
resources by raising the cattle on its own land and that ultimately whole of
its requirements should be directed 'to be met from its own resources. It
cannot be said that the several · objections raised by the Food and
Agriculture department, which have found favour with the said Expert
c Committee are not relevant or are not germane to the issue of establishment
and operation of the slaughter house. The requirements of the slaughter
house, both in the matter of buffaloes and sheep/goat are truly enormous.
Even according to the figures furnished by Sri Subramaniam, the annual
requirement of the slaughter house is more than 1,20,000 buffaloes. The
D number of sheep/goat required every year is about 3 to 4 times more.
Though Sri Subramaniam asserted that a major percentage of the
requirements of the slaughter house is obtained from other States and not
from the Andhra Pradesh State alone, no facts and figures are forthcoming
in this behalf nor have they been examined by the High Court. It is
unfortunate that the Central Government has not looked into this relevant
aspect and has chosen to simply forward the report to the APPCB.
According to the judgment of the High Court dated November 16, 1991, it
was for the Central Government to consider the contents of the Krishnan
Committee report and take a decision in the matter of establishment and
operation of the said slaughter house. It cannot but be said that the Central
Government has singularly failed to comply with the directions of the High
F Court. It also does not appear that the various authorities like Central
Government, State Government, Animal Husbandry department, Industries
department and the APPCB which granted the requisite permissions took
the above factors into consideration or that they were conscious of the said
considerations before granting the permissions. We may make it clear that
we have not taken into consideration the objections of the several voluntary
G
organisations opposing the establishment of the said slaughter house. We
have only referred to t}le objections of the Food and Agriculture department
which have found favour with the Krishnan Committee - and which
recommendations have gone unconsidered by the Central Government. In
this behalf, we may me!UCon that the endorsement of the Chief Secretary,
H which is at variance witt the Krishnan Committee report is not only bald

I
A. B. GOSEYA SANGH v. STATE OF A. P. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 165

but is unsupported by any facts and figures. It appears to be the mere ipsi A
dixit of the Chief Secretary.

We are of the opinion that the learned Judges of the High Court have
not appreciated this aspect in its proper perspective in the judgment under
appeal. The learned Judges dealt with this aspect only in their judgment in
Writ Petition No. 13062 of 1992. The learned Judges disposed of the said B
objection in the following words:

" .......As regards the effect of the project on "depletion of
cattle population", the Director of Animal Husbandry grant
NOC on the ground that the effect of project on cattle
growth is negligible. Sri R.V. Krishnan's report without C
considering the report of Animal Husbandry Department
supported the comments made by the Secretary, Food and
Agriculture Department, who expressed the view that it will
have enormous effect on "depletion of cattle wealth".
According to the Chief Secretary, the Agriculture
Department expressed their view without taking into D
account the total figures of Andhra Pradesh and reliance on
district figures alone is not enough. We are of the view that
the effect of the project on the cattle wealth is a disputable
area. The best judge for making the correct assessment is
the Department of Animal Husbandry." E
We are of the opinion that the rejection of Krishnan Committee report
in the above manner really amounts to slurring over the main
recommendation of the said report. Moreover, the learned Judges have not
dealt with the failure of the Central Government to consider the said report
and pass appropriate orders pursuant to the directions of the High Court in F
its judgment dated November 16, 1991. The learned Judges have observed
in the said judgment that it is not possible for the Court to go into
conflicting reports of experts and that, therefore, they should leave the
matter for the judgment of the Government. This observation again does
not take into account the directions made by the said High Court in its
judgment referred to above. They have also observed that the Director of G
Animal Husbandry has given his opinion or revised opinion, as the case
may be, after taking into consideration the objections of the Food and
Agriculture department. Though no material has been brought to our notice
in support of the said statement, we shall assume that it is so. Even then the
fact remains that this reconsideration by Director, Animal Husbandry
department is said to have taken place sometime in 1990, whereas even in H
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A 1992, the Food and Agriculture department was yet protesting with its
views before the Krishnan Committee. Above all, the said reconsideration
by the Director, Animal Husbandry department far prior to the judgment of
the High Court dated November 16, 1991 does not relieve the Central
Government of the obligation to consider the Krishnan Committee report
and pass appropriate orders in the matter as directed by the judgment of the
B High Court dated November 16, 1991. It was for the Central Government to
consider the said report taking into consideration the several facts and
circumstances mentioned therein as also the contending views expressed by
the several authorities and departments referred to therein. This the Central
Government has clearly failed to do.

c There is another relevant consideration. The slaughter house has been
in operation for the past eighteen months or so. It would be possible to find
out the effect, if any, the operation of the slaughter house had on the cattle
population of Medak and adjacent and nearby districts. It would equally be
relevant to ascertain, if possible, what percentage of cattle slaughtered have
been brought from other States and what percentage from the surrounding
D areas. In this connection, it is relevant to mention that the Animal
Husbandry department has taken- the total cattle population of the Andhra
Pradesh State which is indeed misleading. The slaughter house is situated
on the western boarder of Andhra Pradesh State, almost on the trijunction
of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka. In such a situation, the
slaughter house would rather draw its requirements of cattle from the
E
surrounding and nearby districts rather than go all the way to far away
districts of Andhra Pradesh State like Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam or for
that matter, Nellore and Anantapur, which are situated several hundreds of
miles away. The transport of cattle over long distance may induce the
slaughter house to go in for cattle in the nearby areas, whether in Andhra
F Pradesh, Maharashtra or Karnataka - unless, of course, the cattle are
available at far cheaper rates at distant places, which together with transport
charges would make it more economic for the slaughter house to bring
cattle from far away districts or from far away areas in the country.
Therefore, taking the entire.cattle population of the Andhra Pradesh State is
bound to convey an incorrect picture. Perhaps, it would be more
G appropriate to take into consideration the cattle population of, what the
Krishnan Committee calls, the "hinterland" of the slaughter house.

In view of the fact that the controversy relating to the establishment of
the slaughter house has been going on over the last several years, we think
it appropriate that the Central Government should look into all relevant
H aspects, as directed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its judgment
A. B. GOSEVA SANGH v. STATE OF A. P. [JEEVAN REDDY,J.] 167

dated November 16, 1991, forthwith and record its opinion before we take a A
final decision in the matter. The decision of the Central Government shall
be recorded in a reasoned proceeding, which shall be placed before this
Court. The further orders to be passed would depend upon the contents of
the report and the material so placed before us.

We may make it clear that we should not be understood to have B
expressed any opinion on the merits of the aspects which the Central
Government has been directed to consider by the Andhra Pradesh High
Court. Whatever we have said in this judgment is only to indicate the
failure of the Central Government to abide by the said directions and to
record reasons in support of the direction made herein. We have also not
gone into the other questions raised by the learned counsel for the C
appellants. They can be considered at a later stage after the receipt of the
material and the report from the Central Government.

The Central Government shall submit the report within four months
from today.
D
List the appeals for further hearing after the receipt of the report.

B.K.M.