Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Whereas F. No. 11-4/2000/CZA, dated 7/10-12-2001, circulated the decision, removal of common animals from display in zoo, identifying 20 species, still these animals are not removed, besides FSSAI notified as meat animals, fit to slaughter for human consumption as diet.

Hence,

1. Supply complete list with present status, species gender age wise, copies of all recognised establishments with the APEDA, and other legal identity of rural and urban local bodies, allowed Mithun slaughtering, within outside natural habitat of this species.

2. Status reports of all complaints lodged with action taken, copies needed to follow up.

3. Coordination between CZA, AWBI, APEDA, FSSAI, NTCA, NBA with WCCB, supply copies.

4. Complete list of exporters of Mithun meat, with the bio product of Mithun, and details of Mithun being state animals of Bihar and Arunachal Pradesh, allowed commercial slaughtering for gain.

5. Complete details and all communications and reply with the Union Animal Husbandry Department, APEDA, FSSAI, any State Establishments, along with the excess census of Mithun slaughtering. etc."

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under

:-

     S.    Question                                       Reply
     No.

1. Supply complete list with present status, DAHD to reply. The details of species gender age wise, copies of all recognized establishment with recognized establishments with the APEDA is available with the APEDA, and other legal identity of rural below link:

and urban local bodies, allowed Mithun https://apeda.gov.in/apedaweh slaughtering, within outside natural habitat site/Announcements/List_of_Ab of this species. attoirs_meat.htm

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint registered on 28.03.2024.

5. The Complainant remained absent. On behalf of the respondent Dr. Deepak D.A, Assistant Manager, APEDA, attended the hearing In-Person.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the complainant sought information on Mithun meat, however, the respondent APEDA does not deal with the aforesaid Mithun Meat and hence, the CPIO informed the complainant that the DAHD to reply.