Buffalo Traders Welfare Association Through The General Secretary Shri Feerozuddin vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Agriculture Through Secretary

,X C.A.No. 3769 OF 1996 ITEM No.301 & 302 Court No. 2 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

I.A.No.19-21, 24 in Civil Appeal No.3769/1996

BUFFALO TRADERS WELFARE ASSON. Appellant (s)

VERSUS

U.O.I. & ORS. Respondent (s)

(for clarification/direction) I.A.No.22/2004 (appln. for intervention/direction) and W.P. (C) No.550/2004 (with appln.(s) for AD interim orders and office report)

Date : 30/11/2004 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEGDE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. MATHUR

For Petitioner (s) :Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr.Adv. I.A.19 Mr. P.H. Parekh, Adv. Mr. Rohit Alex, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Mishra, Adv.

Mr. B.B. Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Iti Sharma, Adv.

ForM/s. P.H. Parekh & Co.

I.A.22/Indian Air ForceMr. T.S. Doabia, Sr.Adv. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Adv. Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv.

For Respondent (s)Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, SG. For Urban DevelopmentMr. Devadatt Kamat, Adv. Ministry, UOI & DelhiMrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.

Mr. K.C. Dua, Adv.

Mr. M.C. Mehta, Adv.

Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Adv.

Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv.

Mr. Hardeep Singh Anand, Adv.

Ms. Chitra Markandaya, Adv.

For DDAMr. V.B. Saharya, Adv. forM/s. Saharya & Co.

Mr. S.A. Syed, Adv.

For CPCBMr. Vijay Panjwani, Adv.

Mr. Goodwill Indeevar, Adv.

Mr. K.R. Rajasekaran Pillai, Adv.

Mr. Shrish Kumar Misra, Adv.

Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Adv. for MCDMr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr.Adv. Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain, Adv. Mr. Prashant Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Sunil Gupta, AAG. Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv. For U.P.Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mohd. Saud, Adv. For NCRPBMrs. Sheil Mohini Sethi, Adv. Mrs. Seema Midha, Adv. Mr. Sakesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, Adv. In W.P.(C)550/04Mr. R.K. Jain, Sr.Adv. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr.Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sachin Jain, Adv. I.A.No.25 Ms. Urvashi Popli, Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, Adv. I.A.20-21Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv. I.A.No.24Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Adv. I.A.No.23Mr. Praveen Jain, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A.NO.19/2004 IN C.A.NO.3769/1996 This application for clarification is filed by the persons who are involved in the tr ade of skin and hide of animals. They contend that it is a trade incidental to slaughtering of buffaloes and, hence, they have a right to carry on the said trade in the area where slaughte ring of the buffaloes is presently being permitted, and thereafter at the place where the sai d slaughtering would be relocated. The MCD in its reply filed to this application has stated t hat the activities of skinning the hide of dead animals or curing the same is incidental to le gally permitted activity of slaughtering of the animals. To that extent, they have no objectio n to this trade being conducted in the vicinity of the slaughter-house. In the said view of th e matter this application is allowed and the salting and storage of skins of legally slaughter ed animals near the present slaughter-house is permitted until the same is shifted. However, w e make it clear that this permission is confined only to legally slaughtered animals and the a uthorities concerned are free to prevent and if necessary take such legal actio n in regard to the people who indulge in illegal slaughtering as well as those people who indulge in salting and storing of skins of such illegally slaughtered animals. IAs. 20-21, 24/2004 in CA 3769/96 & WP © No.550/04 : Heard learned counsel for the parties. We find no merit in these applications and the writ p etition which are dismissed accordingly. IA 23 & 25/2004 in CA 3769/96 : Taken on board. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. We find no merit in these applications. The applications are dismissed. IA 22/2004 in CA 3769/96 : On 5.11.2004 this application came up for consideration and based on the apprehension expresse d by the Indian Air Force in regard to the possible danger from birds to their aircrafts. We s ummoned the Chief Secretary of NCT, Delhi and Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Govern ment of India to the Court on 17.11.2004 to reconsider, if need be, the location of the slaugh ter-house at the land-fill area at Ghazipur and shifting the proposed abattoir therefrom. Befo re the date fixed for their appearance, the said officers had convened a meeting of the concer ned officers on 10.11.2004 in which apart from the Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT, Delhi, the S ecretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Defence Secretary, Commissioner, MCD, Vice-Chairman, DDA, representatives from the Air Headquarters, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Department of Anim al Husbandry and Dairying and the DGCA took part. In the said meeting, as could be seen from t he joint affidavit filed, the possible danger to the aircrafts flying in and out of the Hindon air-base was deliberated upon. The Committee noticed the existing ground realities and noted that in the said land-fill area as on date nearly 3000 MT of garbage including 300 MT of meat waste are being dumped. The said Committee also noticed the fact that there are fish and pou ltry markets adjoining the said land-fill site which were reported to be in an unhygienic cond ition. The Committee examined the photographs of the land-fill site, copies of which are produ ced along with the affidavit which indicated the presence of thousands of birds over the landfill area as at present. On the above factual basis the Committee formed an opinion that a new abattoir which will be a modern air-conditioned plant where the entire operations will be und ertaken in a closed building and no waste will be disposed of in the open, could be a suitable project at the said land-fill area. The Committee also noticed that the plan of the MCD to de velop a green belt around the proposed abattoir which should be aesthetically acceptable to on e and all. During the course of the meeting the requirement of Aircraft Act, 1934 and Rule 81B of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 were also taken into consideration and it was ultimately decided to constitute a Committee consisting of representatives of the Ministry of Urban Development, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, MCD, Govt. of NCT, De lhi and IAF to look into the various aspects of the issues involved to resolve the difficultie s, if any, in setting up the abattoir. In the said background an assurance was given to this C ourt that the order of this Court dated 14.7.2004 directing the construction of a modern abatt oir at the Ghazipur land-fill site will be implemented in a responsible and proper manner. The said affidavit also stated that there is no question of indicating any other alternative site

for putting up of the abattoir. After this affidavit was filed in the Court though there was no need to further hear the appli cant in IA No.22/2004, we still directed the application to be listed today i.e. 30.11.2004 so that the applicant could study the abovesaid affidavit and take a realistic view of the matte r. Though sufficient time was granted the applicant in IA 19/2004 did not circulate any reply or objection to the abovementioned joint affidavit but today in the Court handed over an affid avit wherein a technical objection is raised to the effect that no sanction as yet has been ob tained from the competent authority under Rule 81B of the Aircraft Rules, 1937. In regard to t he existing situation in the proposed site it is stated casually that:

"The proposed slaughterhouse is located within the airfield zone. Therefore, any bird activity within this zone may endanger the aircraft operations from Hindan airfield. It is also releva nt that the bird activity is not related to slaughtering only but also to ancillary activities of the slaughter house namely the skin/hide salting etc. it is brought to the kind notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Hindon airfield is responsible for providing air defence cover to Delhi and hence, environment to conduct safe flying from this base is of paramount importan ce."

The statement extracted hereinabove clearly shows that the deponent of the affidavit has neith er visited the site nor was properly instructed as to the existing situation at the Ghazipur l and-fill site. As stated above apart from the report of the Committee the photographs produced themselves indicate that as on today there are thousands of birds hovering over the land-fill site and the applicant has neither taken note of the same nor taken any steps to prevent the said menace which according to the applicant is a danger to the aircrafts. This only indicates that an objection is being taken only on a technical ground without appreciating the advantag

e of the charge in the construction of a modern abattoir. The contents of the affidavit also show that the applicant has not even bothered to find out f rom the MCD the nature of the proposed abattoir and its working which according to the joint a ffidavit shows that the existing bird menace would be eliminated with the construction of the modern abattoir. We also take note of the fact that the representatives from the Air Headquart ers were present in the joint meeting and they were apprised of the nature of construction of the abattoir and that the Committee constituted will take proper steps in constructing the aba ttoir which would take care of the problem of bird menace.

Be that as it may since the representatives of the DGCA, Air Headquarters and Ministry of Civi l Aviation were present at the meeting of 10.11.2004 the issuance of a permission under sectio n 81B of the Aircraft Rules, even though the same is a formality, may be obtained by the MCD t hrough the cooperation of the Chief Secretary, NCT, Delhi and Secretary, Ministry of Urban Dev elopment, Govt. of India. The MCD will also produce the proposed plan of the abattoir and a no te as to its working to the DGCA for this purpose. The Chief Secretary, NCT, Delhi and Secret ary, Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India will coordinate with MCD in obtaining the a bove said permission at the earliest.

The MCD will also file a copy of the proposed construction plan of the new abattoir with compl ete note on its nature of functioning and if possible an Architect's view of the land-fill are a after the construction of the abattoir and landscaping in this Court, within 4 weeks from to day.

In the meantime the construction and other activities as directed vide this Court's order date d 14.7.2004 will continue.

List this matter for further orders on 4th February, 2005.

(PAWAN KUMAR) (PREM PRAKASH) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER