Environmental compliance and animal-preservation law: closure refused, corrective directions issued, and judicially imposed slaughter ban declined.

Location conditions in the industrial licence were treated as directory, so the abattoir was not required to close or relocate on that basis. Environmental non-compliance did not justify immediate closure because the unit had operated with anti-pollution measures; instead, the Court required rectification of the consent order, continued monitoring, and compliance with prescribed standards. Claims of cattle depletion were rejected on the expert and census material, and the meat export policy was not struck down. The Karnataka statute was held not to impose a total ban on slaughter of bovine cattle, and a mandamus creating such a prohibition was refused, though the State was directed to enforce existing protections strictly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the location conditions in the industrial licence and State notification required closure or relocation of the abattoir; (ii) whether the consent granted by the Pollution Control Board and the environmental standards warranted closure of the unit or only corrective directions; (iii) whether the working of the abattoir caused cattle depletion so as to justify closure or invalidate the meat export policy; and (iv) whether the Karnataka statute required a total prohibition on slaughter of bovine cattle and whether such a prohibition could be directed by mandamus.

Issue (i): Whether the location conditions in the industrial licence and State notification required closure or relocation of the abattoir.

Analysis: The location condition in the licence was treated as directory rather than mandatory. The site had been disclosed in the application, permissions had been granted after enquiry, and the authorities had proceeded on that basis for years. The challenge on distance and zoning was not seriously pursued earlier and was treated as a factual issue that did not justify cancellation at that stage.

Conclusion: The objection on location failed, and the issue was answered in favour of the company.

Issue (ii): Whether the consent granted by the Pollution Control Board and the environmental standards warranted closure of the unit or only corrective directions.

Analysis: The environmental norms applied by the Board were found to be below the standards prescribed under the Environment Protection Rules. At the same time, the unit had been operating for years with elaborate anti-pollution measures and the record did not justify immediate closure. The proper course was to require rectification of the consent order, continuing monitoring, and compliance with the prescribed standards, with closure only if non-compliance continued.

Conclusion: Closure was declined, but corrective directions were issued against the company and the Board.

Issue (iii): Whether the working of the abattoir caused cattle depletion so as to justify closure or invalidate the meat export policy.

Analysis: The Court relied on the reports of the expert committees, livestock census material, and the settled approach that findings of technical and scientific bodies are not ordinarily interfered with unless shown to be perverse. It held that the material did not establish depletion of buffalo population in the relevant region. The Court further held that Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties inform constitutional adjudication, but they do not by themselves invalidate a policy, and the meat export policy could not be struck down on the material before it.

Conclusion: The contention of cattle depletion failed, and the challenge to the meat export policy was rejected.

Issue (iv): Whether the Karnataka statute required a total prohibition on slaughter of bovine cattle and whether such a prohibition could be directed by mandamus.

Analysis: The Court accepted that Article 48 extends protection beyond animals presently useful for breeding, milching or draught purposes and that the broader constitutional position in the later Constitution Bench decision had enlarged the understanding of the directive principle. Even so, the Karnataka Act did not itself impose a total ban on slaughter of bovine cattle, and directing such a ban would amount to judicial legislation and trench upon the legislative domain.

Conclusion: The challenge to section 5 of the Karnataka law failed, but the State was directed to strictly enforce the existing statutory protections.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to a limited extent. The existing permissions and regulatory framework were not struck down, the abattoir was not ordered to be closed, and the State and regulatory authorities were instead directed to ensure strict compliance with environmental and animal-preservation laws and to keep the relevant policies under review.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts will not ordinarily displace expert technical findings or compel a legislative policy by mandamus, and while Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties may guide constitutional review, they do not by themselves invalidate a policy or justify judicially created prohibition beyond the statute.

---