________________
"Slaughter-houses are established not for the purpose of slaughter of bulls, bullocks, cows or calves only but for many other animals. The interests of public health require the rogulation of such slaughter-houses. It would be improper to have such a slaughter-house in the midst of a thickly inhabited area. It would be against public health to allow diseased animals to be slaughtered for food. The slaughter must be made and the meat must be sold in hygoinic conditions. There are so many other considerations which have to be kept in view, in this connection. It is for this reason that, licensing has been provided for in S.241. Sections 237 to 241 do not deal with the right of slaughter of animals. They apply to these animals whose slaughter is not prohibited. They come into play only when there is not prohibited. They come into play only when there is a slaughter. They are inapplicable to those classes of animals whose slaughter is prohibited."
122. The result of this Duty of the Citizen and obligations of State itself demand the relevant Byelaws relating to Slaughter Houses to be consistent with this duty and obligation so that, question of opening of Municipal Slaughter House comes into question, only when it has been decided to slaughter the animals, in the light of existing laws.
123. Returning back to slaughter of animals for export purposes, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the Civil Writ No. 2267/90 in the case of MOHD. IQBAL QUARESHI VS. MANAGER, DELHI SLAUGHTER HOUSE, on October 1st, 1992, held that Delhi Municipal Corporation was nol under any obligation to provide any slaughter house for meeting the export needs.
124. But now, once this Constitutional obligation of the 'STATE' towards living croaturos, particularly. livestock population is understood, on the touchstone of the Constitution, a few relevant questions arise in respect of existence, growth, a modernisation of slaughter houses with increased capacities of killings per hour, or otherwise, for the Meat Industry as a 'trade'. particularly by the 'Stale' by sanctioning. promoting, protecting and nursing the export sector for the sake of foreign exchange needs.
125. First, it is to be realised that catering to the economic ambitions of a few in the trade, or earning small foreign exchange for a certain period is no compensation to irreversible situation that the Country might face in terms of its National animal wealth, and cancerous attack on the ecological base and cultural system, which at no cost can bo retreived. That means that country should be prepared to pay a heavy price in the long term for small gain now by nursing growth of Meat Sector, for export as well as domestic business.
126. Second, even if, we concentrate on the existing Constitutional provision of freedom of occupation, trade or business, Clause (6) of the 19(1) empowors the 'STATE' to impose reasonable restrictions to the excercise of this right in the interest of general public. The power inherent in the Stale, itself does not permit 'STATE' to cater to the needs of Meat Industry, when it is not in the interest of general public. Obviously, as discussed, hereinbefore, the patronising of Meat Industry cannot be in the larger interst of the public in the long run. It follows, therefore, that any trading activity, which is not in the interest of general public. can even be totally banned. Even 'State' itself is under no obligation, whatsoever, to provide Meat Industry by extending the facilities of Slaughter House. In AIR 1952 All p. 753 at 758), it was held that at all event, the interest of a small class must yield place to larger interest of society, as a whole.
127. Third, Can Municipal Slaughter House, vested and managed by the Boards. Municipalities or Corporation as executive instrumentalists of Stale, allow the citizens to exercise freedom of trade and business, in a manner, which throttles and violates the citizen's Fundamental Duty in the Constitution
28