Bombay High Court
Shri. Ajay Marathe vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 6 February, 2020
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: S.C. Dharmadhikari, R.I. Chagla
Sherla V.
pil.197.2014_5.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.197 OF 2014
Shri Ajay Marathe ... Petitioner
Vs
State of Maharashtra & others ... Respondents
Ms.Kalyani Tulankar with Mr.Ranjit shinde for the Petitioner
Mr.B.V. Samant, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4, 7, 10 and 11
Mr.S.V. Marne for Respondent No.6
Mr.A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Joel Carlos and
Ms.Sheetal Mane for MCGM
Mr.Parag Vyas with Mr.Vijay H. Kantharia for Union of India
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATED: FEBRUARY 6, 2020 P.C.:
1. When this Public Interest Litigation was placed before us and concerned as we are about the provision for slaughter of animals, in a scientific and hygienic manner, within the limits of thickly populated Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, we called upon Mr.Marne to inform us as to Digitally signed by Vishwanath Vishwanath S. Sherla S. Sherla Date: Page 1 of 7 2020.02.10 10:52:02 +0530 pil.197.2014_5.doc why no concrete steps have been taken by the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation yet to set up an Abattoir.
2. Mr.Marne says that the affidavits placed on record would denote that the Municipal Corporation has identified the land. It has identified the same and it is more particularly described in paragraph 49 on running page 587 of the affidavit, which has been placed by the petitioner in this Public Interest Litigation. It is styled as Survey No.323B (part), Shirawane, admeasuring 85169.28 sq.mtrs. The above Survey number / land has been allotted by the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (for short, 'CIDCO') for use as slaughter house on certain terms and conditions. The project is planned in such a manner that this plot of land will be used for installing a State of the art slaughter house and would also be used for other purposes, namely, Veterinary hospital, Dog Control Centre, Animal Incinerator, etc.
3. We enquired with Mr.Marne as to how the deponent says that together with a slaughter house, the above facilities can also be set up in a part of this land. He says that these are uses which are consistent or in consonance with the object and purpose of allotment. Thus, there is no inconsistency as regards the user of Page 2 of 7 pil.197.2014_5.doc the premises, namely, Slaughter house, Veterinary hospital, Dog Control Center, Animal Incinerator, etc.
4. Our query is whether there is any study or research done prior to this stand of the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation. If there is a concern for public health and public safety and equally, the health of animals, plot for slaughter, concern for hygienic surrounding, then, it may be that the slaughter of animals in close vicinity of Veterinary hospital, would adversely affect the health of the admitted and treated animals. Mr.Marne seeks time to take instructions.
Vishwanath
5. He says that he will take instructions also on the other part of S. Sherla the affidavit and namely, that the Navi Mumbai Municipal Digitally signed by Vishwanath S. Sherla Corporation Date: 2020.02.10 has not committed any breach or violation of the rules 10:51:41 +0530 and regulations so also, the parent law, when he says on oath that the land identified for use (Survey No.323B (part)) is a forest land and that the Conservator of Forests can give the necessary clarification based on which the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation will take the final call. In that regard, our attention is invited to a copy of the 7X12 extract of the above survey number and it is stated that there is no entry therein to the effect that this Page 3 of 7 pil.197.2014_5.doc survey number is a part of a reserved forest or forest land. There is, however, an endorsement that two plots of land came to be transferred from the Forest Department to the Revenue Department. Thereafter, the possession of the land was handed over to CIDCO by effecting mutation entry. It is only because of the mutation entry and its wording that the Additional Municipal Commissioner (Services) entertains a doubt that the plot might be under a reserved forest. The doubt was entertained and a letter was addressed to the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Thane. That letter also clarifies that the Revenue Department handed over several lands to CIDCO in villages Shirawane, Kukshet, Bonsari, Turbhe, Pawne, Shahbad and that in such a developed area covering these villages, the forest land is included.
6. However, since this is a doubt expressed during the course of arguments and the matter is lingering and delayed because of lack of clarification, we called upon Mr.Samant, learned AGP, to take instructions and inform us on the next occasion as to whether the Department of Revenue and Forest has any record which would denotes that this Survey No.323B (part) of village Shirawane falls under a reserved forest. Mr.Samant shall place Page 4 of 7 pil.197.2014_5.doc before us the clarification in this regard at the next hearing and which is scheduled on 14.2.2020.
7. After the clarification comes from the Department of Revenue and Forest, particularly, from the Conservator of Forests, Thane, we will call upon Mr.Marne to give us concrete information with regard to the steps to set up a State of the art Abattoir.
Mr.Marne would inform us when the tender notice will be published and when the facility will be made functional.
8. Ms.Tulankar, appearing for the petitioner, has raised a grievance that at the Deonar Abattoir maintained by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, the Veterinary Surgeons or team of Veterinarians is allowing slaughter of thousands of animals per day. This will jeopardise the health of the animals to be slaughtered and may affect those animals, which are brought for slaughter. This will also affect public health and safety. She invites our attention to a document which she says is an inspection report, which finds a reference in the affidavit of the Municipal Corporation. Our attention is invited to the said documents which denote that on occasions, more than 2000 animals have been slaughtered and in a single day. The Rules, according to her, Page 5 of 7 pil.197.2014_5.doc require about 96 animals to be slaughtered in a day. If an outer limit per day is set out, then, all animals brought for slaughter have to be inspected, checked, their health certified and then alone, they can be taken for slaughter. In the instant case, she says that there is no adherence to the rules and particularly, the standard of safety.
9. We think that instead of we addressing this issue or allowing the issue to be raised in this manner before us, it would be proper if the petitioner Dr.Ajay Marathe is allowed to visit the Deonar Abattoir and particularly, the section where the Veterinarians appointed for the job, assemble, check the animals and thereafter, issue the fitness certificate. Let the petitioner himself verify whether they certify as fit the animals at least thousands of animals in a day. If as Mr.Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, claims the Abattoir is open 24 X 7, then, whether the Rules would allow the animals to be brought and to be certified as fit for slaughter, even beyond the eight hours based on which the Rules make the stipulation. It is said that the petitioner will visit the facility at Deonar for 2 or 3 days continuously and thereafter, may take a call and file a further Page 6 of 7 pil.197.2014_5.doc affidavit. The petitioner is free to lodge a complaint if he notices breach of the rules and other irregularities at the time of issuing the fitness certificate. If the fitness certificate is issued mechanically or in a stereo-type manner, without adherence to the rules, then, surely, the complaint of the petitioner would have to be addressed by the concerned officials in the Health Department of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation or the higher-ups in the hierarchy exercising power from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai headquarters and its suburban offices. Such officers are then expected to take strict action against those officials who commit breach of the rules.
10. For both sides to report to the Court about the progress made after today's hearing, in the first instance, the matter is placed on 14.2.2020 on the supplementary board.
11. Depending upon the response from both sides, the Court will then take a call about calling for further affidavits from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.
(R.I. CHAGLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Page 7 of 7