Case: Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

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 slaughterhouse. It cannot but be said that the Central Government has singularly failed to comply with the directions of the High 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 organisations opposing the establishment of the said slaughterhouse. We have only referred to the 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 mention that 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 ipse dixit of the Chief Secretary 29. 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 objection in the following words"As regards the effect of the project on depletion of cattle population, the Director of Animal Husbandry granted NOC on the ground that the effect of project on cattle growth is negligible. Shri R. V. Krishnans report without 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 account the total figures of Andhra Pradesh and placing 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." * 30. 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 its judgment dated 16-11-1991. 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 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 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 16-11-1991 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 High Court dated 16-11-1991. 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 do31. There is another relevant consideration. The slaughterhouse 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 slaughterhouse 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 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 slaughterhouse is situated on the western border of Andhra Pradesh State, almost on the trijunction of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka. In such a situation, the slaughterhouse would rather draw its requirements of cattle from the 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 distances may induce the slaughterhouse to go in for cattle from the nearby areas, whether in Andhra 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 slaughterhouse to bring cattle from far away districts or from far away areas in the country. Therefore, taking the entire cattle population of Andhra Pradesh State is bound to convey an incorrect picture. Perhaps, it would be more appropriate to take into consideration the cattle population of, what the Krishnan Committee calls, the hinterland of the slaughterhouse

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]29. 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 objection in the following words"As regards the effect of the project on depletion of cattle population, the Director of Animal Husbandry granted NOC on the ground that the effect of project on cattle growth is negligible. Shri R. V. Krishnans report without 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 account the total figures of Andhra Pradesh and placing 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."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 its judgment datedThe 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 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 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 dateddoes 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 High Court datedIt 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 do31. There is another relevant consideration. The slaughterhouse 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 slaughterhouse 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 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 slaughterhouse is situated on the western border of Andhra Pradesh State, almost on the trijunction of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka. In such a situation, the slaughterhouse would rather draw its requirements of cattle from the 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 distances may induce the slaughterhouse to go in for cattle from the nearby areas, whether in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra or Karnatakaunless, 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 slaughterhouse to bring cattle from far away districts or from far away areas in the country. Therefore, taking the entire cattle population of Andhra Pradesh State is bound to convey an incorrect picture. Perhaps, it would be more appropriate to take into consideration the cattle population of, what the Krishnan Committee calls, the hinterland of the slaughterhouse