Disposed

R.Ashok v. Muncipal Commissioner Hyderabad and Anothe

Telangana HC3 Sept 2012WP/5219/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order in multiple writ petitions directing authorities to modernize slaughterhouses. Court directed A.P. Pollution Control Board to take steps, allowed four existing houses to operate post-modernization, and constituted a monitoring committee for periodic oversight.

What did the court decide?

Directing AP Pollution Control Board to take necessary steps, allowing four slaughterhouses to operate subject to modernization, and constituting a monitoring committee.

R.Ashok Vs Muncipal Commissioner… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

W.P.NOS.4747 OF 1989; 486 OF 2004, 1240 OF 2009, 1842 OF 2004, 5219 OF 2001, 7615 OF 2009, 8103 OF 2004, 18866 OF 2002, 18928 OF 2000, 21468 OF 2007 & 28465 OF 2008

¶3

Dt: 03-09-2012.

¶4

W.P.NO.4747 OF 1989 Between: SYED ZIAUDDIN AHMED .. PETITIONER AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER M.C.R., HYDERABAD AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS

¶5

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶6

W.P.NOS.4747 OF 1989; 486 OF 2004, 1240 OF 2009, 1842 OF 2004, 5219 OF 2001, 7615 OF 2009, 8103 OF 2004, 18866 OF 2002, 18928 OF 2000, 21468 OF 2007 & 28465 OF 2008

¶7

COMMON ORDER: (Per THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

¶8

The prayer in all these writ petitions is to direct the respondents to take effective steps for modernisation and maintenance of the slaughterhouses and its surroundings. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶9

Heard learned counsel appearing for all the parties.

¶10

It is submitted by learned Advocate General that pursuant to the Government’s decision to modernize the existing slaughter-houses the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has already taken steps in these matters and in fact five existing slaughter houses in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad viz., Gowlipura, Ramnasthapura, Amberpet, Jiyaguda and New Bhoiguda have been closed on 31.12.2003 and the Modern Abattoir Project at Chengicherla has started functioning from 1.1.2004. Out of five slaughter houses four have already got the consent from A.P.Pollution Control Board, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Airports Authority of India and other concerned authorities to modernise them with modern equipment, excepting Jiyaguda slaughter-house which has not yet been consented to by the A.P. Pollution Control Board.

¶11

In this connection, we direct the A.P. Pollution Control Board to take all necessary steps in the matter keeping in view the guidelines issued in

¶12

G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 8.3.1996, the reports of EPTRI, NGRI and also by visiting the said slaughter house.

¶13

We have also considered the report filed by the learned Advocate General submitted by the Chief Veterinary Officer (Joint Director), GHMC, in this matter, on modernization and upgradation of GHMC slaughter-houses. After considering the report, we direct the authorities to allow the existing four slaughter houses to operate subject to modernisation and all other steps so to be taken in accordance with the provisions of law, including the slaughterhouse situated at Jiyaguda.

¶14

For the purpose of monitoring of the slaughter-houses, we feel it is necessary for us to direct the A.P.Pollution Control Board, GHMC, Municipal Administration Department, Government of A.P., and Animal Husbandry Department to monitor the slaughter-houses periodically, if not atleast once in a month, by the Department Heads or their representatives, shall visit the slaughter-houses in question and shall file their report before the Monitoring Committee to be constituted. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Government of A.P. would be the highest person of that Committee. Member Secretary, A.P.Pollution Control Board, Commissioner, GHMC and other department heads of other units would be the members of the said Committee.

¶15

Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of on the above terms.

¶16

( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ )

¶17

Dt: 03-09-2012.

¶18

( VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J )

¶19

TNB

R.Ashok v. Muncipal Commissioner Hyderabad and Anothe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ashok v. Muncipal Commissioner Hyderabad and Anothe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D. Ravikumar Vs The A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited

Killadi Vera Naga Prasad Rao Vs The Tadepalligudem Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner

Kondepudi Venkata Subba Rao, Vs The Debts Recovery Tribunal

C.J.Karira, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

E. Ram Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Principal Secretary

Society for Social Awareness, Rep. by its President, Vs Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences