BUFFALO TRADERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHERversusMANEKA GANDHI AND ORS.

A   BUFFALO TRADERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER
                          v.
                MANEKA GANDHI AND ORS.

                              NOVEMBER 30, 1996

B                [KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

           Ecology and Environment-Closure of Hazardous and noxious in-
    dustlies-Jdgah Slaughter House-Directions for continuance upto 30th June,
    1997 only-Only goats/he goats/sheep numhe1ing 2000 per day shall be per-
C   mitted to be slaughtered-No other animals shall be slaughtered-l!uffaloes
    (any sex), cows, bulls (i.e. large animals) shall not be permitted to be
    slaughtered-The buffalo section of the slaughter house shall be closed with
    immediate effect-The slaughter house shall be kept environmentally clean by
    the MCD-The animal market shall not be permitted to function near the
D   slaughter house-17ze Municipal Co1poration of Delhi shall stop all illegal
    slaughte1ing near I dgah or any other pa1t of Delhi-Heary pollution fine shall
    be imposed by this Court on polluters indulging in illegal slaughter-
    ing-Municipal Corporation of Delhi shall take steps on war-footing to con-
    struct the modern slaughter house on the alternative land already acquired by
    the Corporation.
E
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 2 in Civil Appeal
    No. 3769 of 1996 etc.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 27.1.95 of the Delhi High Court
    in W.P. No. 2961 of 1992.
F
         S.K. Dholakia, R.F. Nariman, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Arnn Jetly, Amit
    Dhingra, Shakil Ahmad Syed, P.H. Parekh, K.C. Dua, M.M. Isreily, M.C.
    Uddin, T. Qureshi, A.R. Khan, S.P. Jha, Ms. Sheil Sethi, M.C. Mehta, Adv.
    (NP), Hardeep Singh, B.S. Banthia, R.C. Asthana, R.K. Maheshwari,
G   Ashok K. Srivastava and Sushi! Kumar Jain for the appearing parties.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         These two applications relate to Idgah Slaughter House, Delhi. The
    common prayer in both of them is to hold that the order dated July 8, 1996
H   passed in IA No. 22 connected with WP (C) No. 4677 of 1985 does not
                                      410
       BUFFAL01RADERSWELFAREASSN.v.MANEKAGANDHI                             411

have the effect of modifying and/or setting aside the order dated 19.2.1996        A
passed in the connected Civil Appeals, by which interim order of status
quo was passed, while grating special leave. As the order of status quo is
in conflict with the order passed in the writ petition, a clarification has also
been sought that notwithstanding the later order, the order of status quo
would continue to remain in operation.
                                                                                   B
      2. The order in the writ petition relates not only to Idgah Slaughter
House, but to 168 industries, of which the Slaughter House is one. By that
order it was held that all the 168 named industries are "hazardous/noxious"
and, therefore, a direction was given that these industries shall stop
functioning and operating in the city of Delhi with effect from November           C
30, 1996. Direction No. (8) stated that the closure order shall be uncondi-
tional by adding that "(e)ven if the re-location of industries is not complete
they shall stop functioning in Delhi with effect from November 30, 1996.

      3. As the aforesaid order is relatable to 168 industries, it has to be D
seen whether any exception can be made insofar as the Slaughter House
is concerned to permit it to operate and function beyond November 10,
1996. It is worth pointing out that when the Inter Locutory Application in
the Writ Petition was being heard, nobody had appeared on behalf of the·
Slaughter House, despite ample opportunities having been given. This
apart, perusal of the order dated July 8, 1996 shows thai that had come to E
be passed after this court was satisfied beyond doubt regarding the haz-
ardous nature of the Slaughter House, because of what was found by
Central Pollution Control Board, Delhi Pollution Control Committee and
a Special Committee Constituted by this Court.
                                                                                   F
      4. Further, insofar as the Slaughter House is concerned, a Division
Bench of Delhi High Court had, as early as 1.10.1992 by its judgment in
CW Nos. 2267/90, 158/91 and 130/92, directed, inter alia, that the Slaughter
House shall be closed with effect from December 31, 1993 or from any
earlier date which may be fixed by the Court keeping in view the facts and         G
circumstances which may arise before that date. The Delhi High Court
came to be seized with another petition on the same subject filed by
Maneka Gandhi, who had initially approached this Court by making a
grievance regarding the "unhygienic, inhuman and horrible conditions
prevalent at Idgah Slaughter House of Delhi." This Court directed the High
Court to dispose of the petition. By judgment dated 27th January, 1995 in          H
    412                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A   Civil Writ No. 2961/92 another Division Bench, inter alia, ordered for
    closure of Slaughter House on or before 31.12.1995. The aforesaid two
    appeals have challenged the later judgment of Delhi High Court in which,
    while granting special leave, status quo order reading as below was passed:-

            "Our attention is drawn to the minutes of the meeting dated
B           14.2.1996 which state that the consensus between the authorities
            and parties concerned was that there was no place available or
            around Delhi to which the slaughter house could be shifted. Having
            regard ·to this unambiguous statement the matters shall have to be
            fully heard.
c           Special leave granted. The appeals re expedited. Liberty is given
            to the parties to move the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the
            purposes of early hearing. In the meantime, status-quo shall be
            maintained.   11




D          5. A perusal of the status quo order leaves nothing to doubt that it
    is founded on the consensus regarding no place being available in or
    around Delhi to which Slaughter House could be shifted. This consensus
    is reflected in minutes of the meeting dated 14.2.1996. We have perused
    the same. It shows that in the meeting 35 persons were present and the
E   participants showed their concern about "illegal slaughtering in different
    localities" but because of non-availability of alternative place, modernisa-
    tion of the Slaughter House was agreed to. Now, insofar as availability of
    some other place in and around Delhi is concerned, because of the
    sustained efforts made by this Court from 16th September onwards, an area
    of about 55 acres has been made available and possession of the same has
F   also since been reportably delivered. Thus, the basis of passing the status-
    quo order no longer exists.

           6. S/Shri Dholakia and Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing
    for the applicants have nonetheless contended that to take care of the
    difficulty which the consumers would face if the slaughter house would be
G   closed as directed, it should be permitted to function at least upto the
    period when alternative arrangement for slaughtering is made at the new
    site. Shri Nariman read out to us the order passed by this Court on May
    18, 1994 in SLP (C) No. 7790-91 of 1994 in which questions were raised as
    to what would happen when thousands of workers would be thrown on the
H   streets jobless and how the meat requirements of a large city would be met?
       BUFFALOlRADERSWELFAREASSN.v.MANEKAGANDHI                           413

It was submitted by Shri Dholakia that if the Slaughter House would be           A
closed, unhygienic meat would be supplied to the consumers which would
be more hazardous.

      7. Insofar as the workers are concerned, it may be pointed out that
due attention has been paid, inter a/ia, to their continuity of service and
payment with full wages till the closure and restarting of all the industries,   B
as would appear from direction (9) as contained in the order of July 8,
1996, relevant part of which reads as below :-

        "(9) The workmen employed in the above mentioned 168 industries
        shall be entitled to the rights and benefits as directed hereunder :     c
         (a) The workmen shall have continuity of employment at the new
         town and place where the industry is shifted. The terms and
         conditions of their employment shall not be altered to their detri-
         ment:
                                                                                 D
        (b) The period between the closure of the industry in Delhi and
        its restart at the place of re-location shall be treated as active
        employment and the workmen shall be paid their full wages with
        continuity of service.
                                                                                 E
            xxxx                     xxxx                       xxxx

      8. As regards the consumers, we are of the view that they would not
face much of the problem. It has been stated in para 119 of the impugned
judgment that hygenic and fresh meat in adequate quantity can be brought
from the nearby slaughter houses as purely temporary measure. As the             F
cattle which are slaughtered are brought from outside, according to us,
there should be no difficulty in bringing the meat, instead of the animals
themselves.

      9. As to the argument that closure of the slaughter houses should see
unhygienic meat in the market, we should like to observe that this ap-           G
prehension does not seem justified because there .are licensed slaughter
houses near Delhi. It is worth pointing out that when the Idgah Slaughter
House had remained closed for nearly three months in 1994, because of
the strike by butchers there is nothing on record to show that the con-
sumers had to remain satisfied by eating unhygienic meat. The availability       H
    414                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A of the meat also did not get adversely affected.

           10. Jn the aforesaid premises, though the interlocutory applications
    are liable to be dismissed, but the consideration which is weighing with us
    in not dismissing the same altogether is the interest of large number of
    consumers in the territory of Delhi. This is the only industry of its type in
B   the territory. There being no other slaughter house near at hand to cater
    the needs of the residents of Delhi some hardship is likely to be caused to
    the meateaters. At the same time the interest of environment and ecology
    cannot be ignored. It cannot be disputed that the slaughter house is being
    run under highly polluted environment. With a view to keep balance
C   between the need of the people of Delhi and the environment, we direct
    as under :

          (1) We permit the Idgah Slaughter House to function till June 30,
    1997 on the following conditions :

D           (i)   Goats/he goats/sheep numbering 2000 per day shall be per-
                  mitted to be slaughtered in the premises, no other animals
                  shall be slaughtered.

            (ii) Buffaloes (any sex), cows, bulls (i.e. large animals) shall not
                 be permitted to be slaughtered as their slaughter generates
E                more pollution. The Buffalo section is the most polluted
                 section in the slaughter house. We reiterate that except 2000
                 (Two thousand only) goats/he goats/sheep no other animals
                 to be slaughtered in the premises. The buffalo section of the
                 slaughter house shall be closed with immediate effect.
F           (iii) The slaughter house shall be kept environmentally clean by
                  the MCD.

          (2) The Central Pollution Control Board shall visit the slaughter
    house every two months till June 30, 1997 and file report in this Court
G   indicating the environmental status of the premises.

           (3) The animal market shall not be permitted to function near the
    slaughter house. Holding the animals market in the crowded part of the
    city is wvironmentally hazardous and cannot be permitted.

H         (4) The Deputy Commissioner of Police of the area shall stop the
         BUFFALO TRADERS WELFARE ASSN. v. MANEKA GANDHI                     4l5
holding of the market in the vicinity of the slaughter house. The meat             A
sellers/butchers may bring the animals to the slaughter house in an environ-
mentally clean manner and take the meat back in similar way. No market
should be permitted in the area.

       (5) The Municipal Corporation of Delhi shall stop all illegal
slaughtering in Quasebpura area near Idgah or any other part of Delhi.             B
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Delhi shall take necessary
steps to ~op the illegal slaughtering in all parts of Delhi. If necessary police
help be taken in this respect.

       (6) We make it clear that heavy pollution fine shall be imposed by          C
this Court on polluters indulging i.n illegal slaughtering. Even the MCD
shall be liable to pollution fine if the slaughter house is not kept environ-
mentally clean. The staff is charge of the slaughter house may personally
be liable to pay the fine.

      (7) Municipal Corporation of Delhi shall take steps on war-footing           D
to construct the modern slaughter house on the alternative land already
acquired by the Corporation. We make it clear that the ldgah Slaughter
house would not be permitted to continue at the present site beyond June
30, 1997.

      The I.A. are disposed of accordingly.                                        E
T.N.A.                                                    Petition disposed of.