AKHIL SHARAT GOSEWA SANGH versus STATE OF A.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 543 · Decided: 29-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

AKHIL SHARA T GOSEWA SANGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. AND ORS. 
MARCH 29, 2006 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJ. AND TARUN CHA TIERJEE, J.] 
B 
Industries (Development and Regulations) Act, 1951; Section 11(2)/ 
Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 
1977/Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1964; Section 131(3)/Notification C 
dated July 25, 1991 issued by the Central Government and Notification 
dated February 3, 1992 issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh: 
Application for grant of industrial licence to a company to run slaughter 
house-Issuance of No Objection Certificates by various authorities-State 
Government recommending grant of the licence-Central Government issuing D 
Letter of Intent in terms of provisions of Industries (Developmenl and 
Regulations) Act-Suspension of permission by Gram Panchayat-Suspension 
order lifted by the State Government-Challenge to--Reversed by a Single 
Judge of !he High Courl-Appeal against-Division Bench of the High Court 
held that since authorities concerned granted permission duly considering all 
the relevant facts, there was no ground for intervening and disturbing E 
establishment of the slaughter house-On appeal, Held: Only after holding an 
enquiry and having satisfied, permission to run the slaughter house granted--
Provisions relating to location requirements/distance prohibition are directory 
in nature-Cenlral Government could issue licence even without imposing 
any conditions as to the distance prohibition-Since the licence was issued to F 
the company, it amounts to waiver of the conditions-Besides, the licence 
issued to the company in terms of the industrial policy of the State Government, 
hence, the distance prohibition could not be considered to be a ground for 
cancellation of the licence/closing down of the unit-Since, question as to 
location requirement is a question of fact, it cannot allowed to be raised at 
this stage. 
G 
Grant of an Industrial Licence -Environment Protection Ru/es-
Violation of-Held: State Pollution Control Board could prescribe higher 
standards of pollution control but could not lower the same-Since the company 
543 
H 
544 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 3 S.C.R. 
A had installed elaborate anti-pollution equipments, the company is directed 
to comply with the Rule by lowering down the pollution level to permissible 
limits--!f the company fails to do so, it would be open to the authorities to 
direct closure of the company--Environment Protection Rules--Rule 3--
Schedule /--Entry 50 B. 
B 
Water Act; Sections 11 and 25: 
Right to information to members of public--Non-disc/osure---Ejject of--
Held: Provisions under the Act does not confer any such right--Hence, issuance 
of NOC by the authorities not vitiated by reason of non-disclosure of 
C information to the appellant--('onstitution of India, 1950--Artic/e 19(/){a). 
Grant of Licence to run slaughter house--Ejfect on Caulelbuffaloes 
population-Held: Central <Jovernment report confirms that there was no 
reduction in the population of buffaloes since commencement of operation of 
the abattoir-Since findings/report of the expert bodies in scientific/technical 
D matters would not ordinarily be interfered with by the Courts in exercise of 
power under Article 2261136 or 32 of the Constitution, it cannot be held that 
the functioning of the abattoir would result in reduction of buffaloes 
population-Constitution of India, 1950--Artic/es 32--136--226. 
Grant of permission to run a slaughter house vis-a-vis Central 
E Government Export Policy--Held: Despite directions by the Supreme Court to 
the company for reduction of its production to 50%, the total export of meat 
did not reduce-Striking down the existing meat export policy would result in 
discouraging the private entrepreneurs to invest in the meat industry-A Policy 
of the Government cannot be struck down merely on certain/actual disputes--
F 
Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties cannot themselves serve to 
invalidate a policy-The policy, in question, does not violate the constitutional 
provisions-Hence, it cannot be struck down------Constitution of India, 1950--
Artic/es 2 !--39(b) & (c)----47-48. 
Ban on slaughter of bovine animals-Provisions under A.P. Act, 1977 
G vis-a-vis Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat) Amendment Act, 1984--
/nterpretation of-Discussed. 
Provisions of Mysore Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Prevention 
Act, 1964--Enforcement of--Held: State Government is directed to e

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.