SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Y.K. Sabharwal and P.P. Naolekar, JJ.

Writ Petition (Civil) No.44 of 2004. D/d. 2.5.2005.

People for Ethical Treatment of Animals - Petitioners

Versus

Union of India & Ors. - Respondents

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Raj Panjwani and Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, Advocates.

For the Respondents M/o Environment :- Mr. Rajiv Dutta,Sr. Adv., Mr. Vikas Sharma and Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advocates.

For the Animal Welfare Board :- Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain and Ms. S. Borthakur, Advocates.

For the Goa :- Mr. Shridhar Y. Chitale and Mr. A.P. Medh,Advocates.

For the West Bengal :- Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma and Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocates.

For the Gujarat :- Ms. Hemantika Wahi and Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, Advocates.

For the Uttaranchal :- Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Addl.AG., Mr. Avatar Singh Rawat, Addl.AG., Mr. Baldev Aterye and Mr. J.K. Bhatia, Advocates.

For the Tripura :- Mr. Gopal Singh, Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Mr. P.D. Tyagi and Mr. Rajeev Dvivedi, Advocates.

For the NCT of Delhi :- Mr. N.N. Goswami, Sr.Adv., Mr. S.W.A.Qadri and Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advocates.

For the M/o Health :- Mr. B. Dutta, Sr. Adv., Mr. S.W.A.Qadri and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates.

For the Manipur :- Mr. KH. Nobin Singh, Advocate.

For the Arunachal Pradesh :- Mr. Anil Shrivastav and Mr.Saurabh Shrivastava, Advocates.

For the Maharashtra :- Mr. S.S. Shinde and Mr. Mukesh K.Giri, Advocates.

For the Andhra Pradesh :- Mr. Manoj Saxena, Mr. Amit Meharia,Mr. Debojit Borkakati and Mr. Mohan Prasad Meharia, Advocates.

For the Assam :- Ms. Krishna Sarma, Adv., Mr. J.R. Luwang,Adv. and for M/s. Corporate Law Group.

For the Rajasthan :- Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl.AG., Mr.Naveen Kumar Singh and Ms. Shivangi, Advocates.

For the Haryana :- Mr. Manjit Singh, Ms. Vivekta Singh,Mr. Harikesh Singh, Mr. Hari Kishan Kataria and Mr. T.V. George, Advocates.

For the Chhattisgarh :- Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Ms. Deepti Singh and Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Advocates.

For the Madhya Pradesh :- Mr. Sakesh Kumar, Mr. Amit Mishraand Mr. S.K. Agnihotri, Advocates.

For the U.T., Chandigarh :- Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and Ms. Shomila Bakshi, Advocates.

For the U.T. of Andaman :- Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate.

For the Nicobar, Daman & Diu :- Mr. D.S. Mahra and Nagar Haveli and Lakshwadeep.

For the Sikkim :- Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv., Mr. A. Mariarputham,Adv. for M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co.

For the Nagaland :- Mr. U. Hazarika, Ms. Sumita Hazarikaand Mr. Satya Mitra, Advocates.

For the Jharkhand :- Mr. Gopal Prasad and Mr. Anand Shekhar,Advocate.

For the Punjab :- Mr. Bimal Roy Jad, Ms. Sunita Pandit,for Mr. Arun K. Sinha and Mr. T.V. Ratnam, Advocates.

For the Meghalaya :- Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate.

For the Pondicherry :- Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocate.

For the Himachal Pradesh :- Mr. J.S. Attri, Advocate.

For the Madhya Pradesh :- Mr. Sakesh Kumar, Mr. S.K. Agnihotriand for Mr. B.S. Banthia, Advocates.

For the Karnataka :- Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Advocate.

For the Bihar :- Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh and Mr. B.B. Singh,Advocates.

For the Jammu & Kashmir :- Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Advocate.

For the Kerala :- Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, Advocates.

For the Andhra Pradesh :- Mr. Manoj Saxena, Mr. Mohanprasad Meharia, Mr. S.K. Mittra and Mr. Debojit Borkakati, Advocates.

For the Orissa :- Mr. Shibashish Misra, Advocate.

For the Tamil Nadu :- Mr. R. Ayyam Perumal, Mr. S. Vallinayagam and Mr. Sewa Ram Bairwa, Advocates.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2000, Rule 9(1) - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Slaughter Houses - Public Interest Litigation filed seeking directions against violation of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act - MoEF sought time to take appropriate action to consider proposal of Animal Welfare Board for appointing State level officers to inspect slaughter houses - Direction issued to MoEF to consider expeditiously as to proper person who may be empowered to inspect slaughter houses under Rule 9(1) and also to file affidavit - Court directed Board, situated in Chennai to inspect slaughter houses in State of Tamil Nadu under Rule 9(1) and to file report.

[Para 1]

ORDER

1. The Ministry of Environment and Forests, in the affidavit dated 24th March, 2005, has sought additional three months' time to take appropriate action in regard to the consideration of the proposal of the Animal Welfare Board of India [for short, "the Board"] for appointing State level forest officers as officers empowered under Rule 9(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House)Rules, 2000, to inspect the slaughter houses. Prima facie, we tend to agree with the submissions made by Mr. Raj Panjwani, learned counsel,about the problems likely to arise if forest officers are empowered under Rule 9 (1) of the Rules. Further, some of the States, as noticed in the affidavit dated 24th March, 2005, have reservations about such authorisation in favour of the forest officers. We direct the Ministry to consider expeditiously as to the proper person or authority, who may be empowered to inspect the slaughter houses under Rule 9(1) of the Rules. The Ministry shall file affidavit by 15th July, 2005. In the meanwhile, we direct the Board, which is situated in Chennai,to at least inspect the main slaughter houses in the State of Tamil Nadu and file its inspection report. The Board is empowered to inspect the slaughter houses under Rule 9(1) of the Rules. This aspect has also been mentioned in the order dated 1st November, 1994.

2. List the writ petition in the month of August, 2005.

.