M.A. Saithu vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board and Others

Alexander Thomas, J.—1. The case projected in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:--That the petitioner was conducting a slaughter house and retail meat sale unit in ward No. IX of the 2nd respondent Eriyad Grama Panchayat, near Kodungallur, Thrissur district, for the past 70 years and that this is the only income for the petitioner and his family members for their livelihood. That the said units are situated in 23.5 cents of property of the petitioner, which is not in a thickly populated area, etc. That the petitioner secured Ext. P-1 and Ext. P-2 licences from the 2nd respondent Panchayat for the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively for running the retail meat sale unit. That the 1st respondent-Kerala State Pollution Control Board as per Ext. P-3 proceedings dated 26.3.2008 had permitted the petitioner to set up a bio-gas unit near to the slaughter house, with the condition that the liquid affluents flowing from the bio-gas plant should have treatment facility and that the time required for setting up the proposed bio-gas plant and affluent treatment facilities should be informed to the Board, etc. That the petitioner has secured licence from the 2nd respondent Panchayat for running the meat sale unit for the subsequent periods also. That on 27.7.2009, he had submitted Ext. P-4 application to the 2nd respondent Panchayat for grant of licence to run the retail meat sale unit for the year 2009-10, which was acknowledged by the 2nd respondent Panchayat as per Ext. P-5 dated 29.7.2009. That as per Ext. P-7, the 1st respondent Pollution Control Board had granted consent for running of the slaughter house upto 31.12.2007. That the additional respondent No. 5 (one Sri. P.M. Abdul Salam) and some persons had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition as W.P.(C). No. 13077/2008 by impleading the petitioner herein as respondent No. 1 therein and two other private parties as respondents 2 and 3 therein, alleging that the contesting respondents 1 to 3 therein (the petitioner herein and two others) are running unauthorised slaughter houses and meat stalls in the respondent Panchayat in violation of the statutory rules and for appropriate directions in that regard and this Court, as per Ext. P-8 judgment dated 11.4.2008, disposed of W.P.(C). No. 13077/2008, at the admission stage itself, by directing that the representation at Ext. P-5 therein submitted by the petitioners therein before the respondent Eriyad Panchayat should be taken up for consideration by that Panchayat and, by granting reasonable opportunity to the contesting respondents therein and after conducting such enquiry as is warranted, to take a decision in the matter raised by the petitioners therein within one month, etc. That the Medical Officer, Madavana Health Centre (3rd respondent) as per Ext. P-6 dated 7.8.2009 [Ext. P-6(2)] had unilaterally informed the 2nd respondent Panchayat that the petitioner''s slaughter house and retail meat sale unit are being run unauthorisedly and without licence, etc. On the basis of Ext. P-6(2) dated 7.8.2009 issued by the Medical Officer of the Public Health Centre concerned, the 2nd respondent Panchayat issued Ext. P-6(1) dated 29.8.2009 ordering that the petitioner is running the slaughter house and meat sale unit unauthorisedly and in violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C). No. 379/2003 and that the petitioner should forthwith close the functioning of his slaughter house and meat sale unit, etc. By Ext. P-14 dated 10.8.2009 the 1st respondent Pollution Control Board had informed the petitioner that his request to grant the consent for running the slaughter house has been forwarded to the head office of the Pollution Control Board at Thiruvananthapuram. It is in the light of these facts and circumstances that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the prayers to quash the impugned Ext. P-6(1) proceedings and to grant appropriate reliefs in the matter.

It is contended by the petitioner that the impugned Ext. P6 proceedings are against the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder and that it has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and without any reasonable or proper enquiry and that the 3rd respondent, who had issued Ext. P-6(2), has no authority in the matter of grant and renewal of licence under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder, etc.

This Court as per order dated 23.10.2009 had allowed the prayer in I.A. No. 13093/2009 for impleadment of additional respondents 4 and 5, in the respondent array.

The 2nd respondent Grama Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit dated 26.1.2009, wherein it is contended that the petitioner has not been granted any licence to run slaughter house at any point of time and that earlier he was granted licence to run the meat stall for sale of beef as evident from Ext. P-1, etc. and that subsequently his application for licence to run the meat sale unit was received as per Ext. P-4 on 27.7.2009, on which, the Panchayat had requested the 3rd respondent-Medical Officer to submit a no objection certificate within three days from 3.8.2009 as per Ext. R-2 (a) dated 3.8.2009. The 3rd respondent as per Ext. R-2(b) dated 7.8.2009 ([Ext. P-6(2)] had requested the Panchayat to take steps to close down the meat sale unit run by the petitioner as the petitioner is running a slaughter house and meat sale unit and that there are no sanitary facilities in the site, etc. That the 2nd respondent Panchayat had requested the petitioner as per Ext. R-2(c) dated 19.8.2009 to furnish certain details, etc. and it is thereafter that the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the instant the Writ Petition on 15.9.2009. That the petitioner was running a slaughter house without any licence under the guise of the licence obtained by him for running a meat sale unit and that he had not applied for grant of any licence for running a slaughter house, etc. That the petitioner as per Ext. R-2(d) had applied for grant of licence to run a slaughter house, which was rejected alleging non-compliance of the conditions. That the petitioner later submitted Ext. R-2(e) dated 2.8.2008 undertaking that he will not run the slaughter house without compliance of the rules, etc.

Heard the parties concerned.

This Court, while admitting this Writ Petition, had also granted an interim order dated 11.6.2009, wherein it is inter alia ordered that further action pursuant to the impugned Ext. P-6 proceedings will be stayed, except as regards the slaughtering of animals and that the petitioner will be permitted to vend meat if his licence for such purpose is current and that the respondents could ensure that there is no slaughtering of the animals on the premises of the petitioner, etc. The above interim order was extended until further orders as per order 15.1.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not functioned the slaughter house unit, after the issuance of the impugned Ext. P-6 order in strict compliance with the interim order passed by this Court and that by virtue of the permission granted by this Court by the aforesaid interim order, the petitioner has been running the meat vending unit even now, in strict compliance with the interim order passed by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that though he had earlier got permission from the Pollution Control Board in terms of Ext. P-3 dated 26.3.2008 and Ext. P-7, which was current upto 31.12.2007, he is not proposing to now proceed with the running of the slaughter house and that as of now, he is only interested to continue the running of his meat sale unit. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has been carrying out the activities in his meat sale unit in strict compliance with the directions issued by this Court in the aforestated interim orders. When the petitioner had requested the 2nd respondent Panchayat to make available a copy of the order passed by the Apex Court in W.P.(C). No. 309/2003, which is referred to in Ext. P-6 order, the Panchayat had informed petitioner as per Ext. P-12 dated 26.9.2009 that the Panchayat is not having any such orders of the Apex Court, etc. Even in the pleadings submitted by the 2nd respondent Panchayat in the counter affidavit filed by them, no reference is made to the orders passed by the Apex Court in W.P. (C). No. 309/2003. The 1st respondent Pollution Control Board has also not furnished copies of the orders passed by the Apex Court in W.P.(C). No. 309/2003. The Registry of this Court had made available a copy of the order dated 30.1.2014 passed by the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 309/2003, which is also reported in , (2014) 3 SCC 143. A reading of the said order dated 31.1.2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 309/2003, makes it clear that the directions issued therein are mainly in relation to supervising and monitoring the implementation of the provisions of 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 of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2000, etc. and reference is also made therein regarding the supervision and inspection of various slaughter houses functioning in various parts of the country. Reference is also made by the Apex Court in the aforestated order dated 30.1.2014, to the earlier orders passed by the Apex Court on 10.10.2012 and 27.8.2013 in W.P.(C). No. 309/2003. A reading of the order dated 10.10.2012 in W.P.(C). No. 309/2003 would show that the reference is made therein about the directions given to all the State Governments and Union Territories to constitute committees in terms of the decision of the Union of India dated 26.4.2012 and direction was also given therein to the Central Pollution Control Board, Animal Welfare Board and the Ministry of Environment and Forest to work out broad framework so that committees can effectively implement the provisions of the Act regarding transportation of livestocks, slaughter and disposal of waste etc. The order dated 27.8.2013 in W.P.(C). No. 309/2003 also refers to the direction given to the East Delhi Municipal Commissioner to file a status report within four weeks indicating the steps taken by them to comply with the various directions issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forest under the heading, "Broad Framework for the State Committees for Slaughter Houses" in compliance with the earlier order dated 10.10.2012, etc. The parties concerned now point out before this Court that those directions are essentially for regulating Pollution Control and Management in the running of slaughter houses and the aspects relating to the prevention cruelty against animals, etc. The learned counsel for petitioner now submits that he would limit his prayer for direction to the 2nd respondent Panchayat in the matter of his running of the retail meat sale unit, for which consistently he had secured due licence from the Panchayat as evident from the documents produced in the Writ Petition.

The impugned Ext. P-6 proceedings to the extent it interdicts the petitioner from running the slaughter house need not be interfered with in view of the those submissions made by the petitioner''s counsel. However, the impugned Ext. P-6 proceedings to the extent it interdict the functioning of the petitioner''s retail meat sale unit is liable to be interdicted for reasons more than one. One of the allegations therein is that the petitioner was running the meat sale unit without any licence. Going by Exts.P-1, P-2, etc. and going by the pleadings in counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent Panchayat, the petitioner was granted due licences for the various periods to run his retail meat sale unit, which is all the more evident from Exts.P-1 and P-2. The petitioner had submitted his application for grant of licence to run the retail meat sale unit for the year 2009-10 as per Ext. P-4 on 27.7.2009, which was acknowledged by the Panchayat as per Ext. P-5 dated 29.7.2009. Ext. P-6(2)/Ext. R-2(b) dated 7.8.2009 to the extent it is stated therein that the petitioner was running an unauthorised retail meat sale unit appears to be factually incorrect. The submission of the petitioner''s application for 2009-2010 as per Ext. P-4 dated 27.7.2009 is also admitted by the 2nd respondent Panchayat. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was running an unauthorised meat sale unit as on the date of the issuance of Ext. P-6(2)/Ext. R-2(b) dated 7.8.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent Medical Officer. Moreover, the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to controvert the unilateral version projected in Ext. P-6(2)/Ext. R-2(b) dated 7.8.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent. In the light of these aspects, the impugned Ext. P-6 proceedings to the extent it interdicted the functioning of the petitioner''s meat sale unit is quashed. It is made clear that the impugned Ext. P-6 to the extent it interdicted the running of the petitioner''s slaughter house is not in any way interfered with by this Court. It is brought to the notice that the petitioner has been running the meat sale unit on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court referred to above. The petitioner will be at liberty to submit a requisite application for permission to run the retail meat sale unit before the 2nd respondent Panchayat in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is brought to notice that the licence for running the meat sale unit is to be applied for as required under Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous & Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules 1996, as the activity of storing, preparing or selling of meat is covered by Entry No. 55 of Schedule I of Rule 3 framed under those rules. It is further pointed out that the other provisions relating to the location of the meat stall, power to inspect the meat stall, conditions to be observed by meat stall holders, etc. are regulated by Rules 38, 39 and 40, etc. of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Slaughter Houses and Meat Stalls) Rules, 1996 framed under the Panchayat Raj Act. It is for the petitioner to submit the necessary application in the requisite form in the manner provided under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder. On receipt of the application, the 2nd respondent Panchayat will conduct initial inspection of the petitioner''s unit and if the Panchayat authorities are of the considered opinion that the views/consent of the 1st respondent Kerala Sate Pollution Control Board and the 3rd respondent Medical Officer are also necessary and for processing the petitioner''s application, then the Panchayat will be at liberty to ensure that process in that regard is also completed. In such eventuality, the petitioner would also be directed to comply with any formalities for getting views/consent of such authorities. The reports/proceedings that may be made available to the Panchayat by the 1st respondent Pollution Control Board and the 3rd respondent Medical Officer should also be made available to the petitioner. If any conditions regarding the functioning of the petitioner''s meat sale unit are recommended by those authorities, the petitioner should also be given reasonable opportunity to comply with such requirements. The 2nd respondent Panchayat after completing such formality will grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and then take decision on the application for grant of such licence to run the retail meat sale unit. Until a final decision is taken by the 2nd respondent Panchayat as directed above, the interim order passed by this Court enabling the petitioner to run the retail meat sale unit would continue.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as of now the petitioner is not proposing to run the slaughter house and that if, at a future eventuality, the petitioner thinks it appropriate to run a slaughter house, then his application for the same should be considered by the Panchayat, on compliance with the requisite conditions in that regard. It is made clear that this judgment will not in any way preclude the petitioner from making necessary application to run the slaughter house in accordance with law, if the same is warranted in future.

With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.