LAXMI NARAIN MODIversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

                        [2014] 2 S.C.R. 200


A                      LAXMI NARAIN MODI
                                 v.
                 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
               (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 309 of 2003)
                        JANUARY 30, 2014
B
                 [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:

       By Orders dated 23.8.2012 and 10.10.2012, Supreme
0
  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
                                 200
H
   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.
                                                                   B
    Writ Petition (Civil) No. 309 of 2003.
                               WITH
W.P. (C) No. 330 of 2001.
W.P. (C) No. 688 of 2007.                                          c
W.P. (C) No. 44 of 2004.
S.L.P. (C) No. 14121 of 2009.
    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.