The petitioner submits that it acquired Ac.9.33 guntas of land in Raipalli Tanda, and made applications to various authorities, seeking permission for establishment of a factory for manufacturing frozen buffalo and sheep meat with installed capacities of 36 and 6.5 metric tonnes per day, respectively. Permissions are said to have been accorded by various authorities, including the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board and the Grampanchayat.


Writ Petition No.25219 of 2012

M/s Qureshi Internationl, rep. by its Managing Partner, Yousuf Mujahid.

The Director of Factories,A.P., Hyderabad, and others

Counsel for petitioner: Sri L.V. Uma Maheshwar Rao

Counsel for Respondents : G.P. for Industries, for RRs 1 to 3
                                      Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, for RRs 4 & 5
                                      G.P for Revenue for RRs 6 to 9
                                      G.P. for Home for RRs 10 & 11
                                      Sri O. Manohar Reddy, for R12


?Cases referred


The petitioner is partnership firm, involved in the activity of export and
import.  It feels aggrieved by the steps taken by the authorities of the Revenue
Department in demolishing the foundation laid for compound wall around Ac.9.33
guntas of land in Sy.No.25 of Raipalli Tanda, Parvatapur Village, Zaheerabad
Mandal, Medak District.

The petitioner submits that it acquired Ac.9.33 guntas of land in Raipalli
Tanda, and made applications to various authorities, seeking permission for
establishment of a factory for manufacturing frozen buffalo and sheep meat with
installed capacities of 36 and 6.5 metric tonnes per day, respectively.
Permissions are said to have been accorded by various authorities, including the
Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board and the Grampanchayat. It is stated that
the preliminary work was commenced, and at that stage, demolition is resorted
to, without issuing any notice.   Mention is made to certain proceedings issued
by the Commissioner of Industries and the District Collector, Medak District at
Sanga Reddy, the 6th respondent herein.

Heard Sri L.V. Uma Maheshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Government Pleaders for Industries, Revenue, Home, Sri P. Raghavender Reddy,
learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned
counsel for respondent No.12.

This writ petition, in fact, helps as an eye-opener for the Government, and the
public, at large, on highly sensitive and important issues, that have a bearing
upon the economy, environment, and some times, even the survival of the
Be it on account of the indifference on the part of the Government on such
issues, or the desperate attempt of businessmen to earn money through whatever
means, Medak District, which derives its name as rice bowl (methukusema), has
become the bowl of beaf and slaughter capital of the State.  The existing modern
abettors have contributed to the rich profits for the owners thereof, but have
successfully made the livestock in Medak and surrounding districts, almost to
vanish.  Gone are the days, when proud possession of villages used to be
domestic animals, such as, cows, bullocks buffaloes, sheep, goats, domestic
birds etc.
The existing abettors can be kept functional only by killing hundreds of such
livestock, each hour, and thousands, each day.  Unfortunately, the growth of the
livestock is in negative figures.  The Government is very happy with the income
it is getting in the form of various taxes and duties on the beaf and meat, as
it is with the income from intoxicants.

The petitioner was basically a trader in skin and left over products of
buffaloes, got encouraged by the existing scenario, and made his efforts to
establish a modern abettor/slaughter house of his own. The proposed capacity of
his factory is 60 cattle, and 150 sheep per hour.  He submitted an application
before the concerned authority of the Central Government, which have simply
acknowledged it.  Applications were also made to the Commissioner of Industries,
A.P. Pollution Control Board, Director of Factories and the Grampanchayat,
Raipalli Tanda, Medak District.  The term of the Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat
expired recently, and no elections were held.  That became handy for the
petitioner, and he approached the Panchayat Secretary, the
4th respondent herein.  A letter dated 28-05-2012 was issued by the 4th
respondent, stating that the Grampanchayat has no objection for establishment of

The A.P. Pollution Control Board accorded its approval through proceedings dated
08-05-2012.  The Director of Factories approved the plans, through proceedings
dated 21-02-2012.
It is important to note that the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Ministry
of Commerce and Industry Department, New Delhi, addressed a letter dated 10-04-
2012 to the petitioner, stating that the petitioner has to take any steps for
sourcing of raw material.  The petitioner has also obtained a certificate of
conversion of land use from the Revenue Divisional Officer.  Thereafter, it
started steps for construction, initially a compound wall.

In the name of industrial development, the topography of Medak District was
changed to such an extent, that a major portion of it has become unfit for
inhabitation of human beings, and animals in any way, have been submitted to the
The villagers realized the fraud played by the Panchayat Secretary and took the
matter to the District Collector, the
6th respondent.  It must be said to the credit of the 6th respondent that he
took immediate steps, called for a report from the Mandal Parishad Development
Officer and issued proceedings dated
24-07-2012, cancelling the permission accorded by the Special Administrative
Officer of the Grampanchayat, the
5th respondent.  Therefore, the very basis for the petitioner to start the
industry disappeared.  The proceedings issued by the
6th respondent were not challenged by the petitioner, yet.
The Commissioner of Industries, the 2nd respondent, who exhibited over
enthusiasm in helping the petitioner to secure all permissions, woke up in the
matter and addressed letter dated 27-07-2012, requiring the petitioner to
identify alternative location and a modified IEM from the Government of India.
Even this is not challenged.

In India, and particularly, in the State of Andhra Pradesh, it is difficult to
imagine life in a village, without the existence of animals, such as the
bullocks, cows, buffaloes, sheep, goats.  Rural  life is interdependent upon
such animals.  Unfortunately, on account of shortsighted policies of the State
and greed of the businessmen, serious threat has come to the very existence of
the livestock.  The situation has reached such serious proportions, that the
Ongole Breed, which was a pride of the State, is facing extinction in India,
even while it is grown as a best source of meat in other countries.  Cow, which
figures next after mother, and gives the milk, a source of energy for children
and adults alike, just by eating gross, is now looked upon as a raw material for
slaughter houses.
On account of phenomenal profits earned by the modern slaughter houses, they are
prepared to purchase such animals at higher cost.  Poor farmers are tempted to
sell them, driven by their indebtedness and worries.  Added to this, theft of
animals is on the rampage.  The cost of milk, naturally increased manifold.
Agriculture has almost becoming secondary even in villages.  A rural economy,
which flourished even during alien regimes, has slowly become paralyzed, after
the country became independent.

Successive Governments have proclaimed their policy to make villages, free of
huts.  Cattle sheds unfortunately are mostly in the huts.  Obviously not to
stand in the  way of the Government, which is determined to make villages, huts
free, the farmers have also chosen to forego the huts as well as animals.
Separate ministry is created for protection of environment by diversity, etc.
On the one hand, hundreds of crores are spent to protect handful tigers and
lions, and on the other hand, phenomenal income is earned in the form of taxes
and duties by giving licences liberally, for killing hundreds of cows and
buffaloes, each minute and export of the meat.  The results are not difficult to
imagine.  If a country feels that the income derived by it by selling meat would
add to its economy, one can safely conclude that it is drifting away from the
values of nature, ecology and economy, and it is a matter of time, that it would
perish.  This Courts feels that time has come where a serious re-look must be
had, to whatever has taken place so far.

The 4th respondent obviously under pressure from the villagers and officials,
has come forward with the plea that no permission was issued at all.  If he
happens to be the same person, who issued the permission earlier, proceedings
must be initiated against him,
so that officials like him do not make such misadventure.
A Panchayat Secretary should not have taken such a major decision, when there is
no elected body.  Further, the Commissioner of Industries must ensure that no
more abettors are constructed in Medak District and grant of permissions for
establishment of such abettors in other places must be dependent upon the
population of livestock in the concerned district.

Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, this Court directs that,

a) no more permissions shall be accorded for establishment of abettors in Medak
District, having regard to the capacity of the existing ones;

b) Whenever an application is made for establishment of abettors in any other
district, the same shall be considered by the concerned authorities, and in
particular, the Grampanchayats, only when the population of the cows/buffaloes
exceeds 10% and that of sheep exceeds, 20% of the human population in the
district, as a unit; to be certified by the Head of the Animal Husbandry
Department of the District and countersigned by the District Collector.

c) The authorities shall also insist on establishment and maintenance of
breeding centres for production of the animals of the concerned category and the
abettors shall function only after adequate raw material/livestock is produced.

This arrangement shall be tentative, till the Government frames its own
guidelines, in this regard.  It shall be open to the petitioner to take
necessary steps, as indicated by the Commissioner of Industries, through his
letter dated 27-07-2012, subject to the above.

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also shall stand disposed
of.  There shall be no order as costs.



Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.