Judgement Dealing With Subject Of Slaughter Of Animals In Light Of Indian Constitution

SR No.: 269193
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: C K Chaturvedi
Publisher: Akhil Bharat Krishi Go Seva Sangh
Total Pages: 40
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 8 MB

Page 5

13. The reply to the case was filled by Defd.No.3, Union of India, in the Ministry of Finance, Public Investment Board and Defd.No.4, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. There is no pleading in the suit, as to how Public Investment Board comes into picture or is involved in the controversy. It. therefore, rightly stated that no proposal for setting up of a slaughter house in Narela, had been received nor it was pending for approval. It was slated that, Public Investment Board was only a recommending body and works on behalf of the Govt.of India, as subordinate to the Ministry of Finance.
14. The reply of Corporation, Defd.No.4; Defd.No.6, the Manager, Slaughter House is detailed one. It is not the case of the Corporation that no slaughter house at Narela is contemplated. In fact, the Para 8A of the Statement of the Corporation states that contemplated Slaughter House at Narela has sufficient space available for the purpose, and the case of the plaintifts that enough space is not availabie, has been described as incorrect. It is stated that even if Master Plan does not envisage space for this, DDA has powers to modify the plans, MCD has also taken a plea that a Civil Writ No. 2287/90, has been filed by one Moha.Iqbal Qureshi, regarding existing slaughter house at idgah, and in that case the substantial question of Law and fact is the same and the MCD is bound by the Orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court, and Order passed in the suit will be in conflict with the Order in this case. It is stated that, existing accommodation of 7 acres at Idgah, is not sufficient for the purpose, keeping in view the WORK LOAD.
sling sa MCO
15. As a matter of fact, there is now no doubt that. MCD has plan to construct a modern slaughter house at Narela in collaboration or with assistance of Hungarian Government. This has been staled by Commissioner of MCD Mr. P.V. Jayakrishnan, himself, at a seminar held at India International Centre, in Delhi, and is otherwise well known by Press Reporters covering the Slaughter house cases and conditions.
16. An official note (on record) of Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, which was imploaded by Court as Delu. No.7, though shows, its awareness of reasons to make it a party to the suit, but it has chosen, not to directly send its case to court, but has transferred its responsibility to Delhi Administration on the basis of a dubious practice that, first defendant has to take care of all the defendants. It transferred all the papers, and the case to Deputy Director (Animal Husbandry) in the Delhi Administration. During the proceedings. Counsel for the MCD made statement that it will look after the case of Union Government. Later, a Counsel for Delhi Administration filed a reply' on its own behalf, but not on behalf of Department of Animal Husbandry, Deld. No. 7. Its own case is that Department of Delhi Administration is not concerned with the setting up or shifting of existing Slaughter House. It is a noteworthy that though Union Government, Deld. No.7, jeltisoned its responsibility to Delhi Administration, but Delhi Administration has not shouldered it.
17. The Ministry of Environment, Defendant No. 2, despite service has not filed any reply either from the points of view, of the environmental pollution of the air for the surrounding populations, or for the sake of concern for the millions ..f Animals slaughtered or killed in the country, and its impact from the ecological points of view in the integrated term ENVIRONMENT. This Ministry has also missed the case in the suit that slaughter of animals is illegal, in human and unconstitutional and the State has no right and cannot have povints to permit the slaughtering of animals from environmental point of view also. The other deterbunts, though, not concerned with this legality aspect, have however, come forward to say that this is not illegal or inhuman or unconstitutional or is wrong from environmental points of view.
18. On 23/3/92, when the Court saw no hopes of any Reply or Written Stalement from the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Agriculture, the Court was constrained to STRIKE-OFF the