The Perambur Meat Labourers' Association v. The District Collector

O R D E RPraying for a direction to the 2nd respondent to prepare aproposal protecting and safeguarding the livelihood of the members oftheir association before commencing the service of the Peramburmodern abattoir/slaughter house, the petitioner has filed the presentwrit petition.2.Facts of the case as put forth in the affidavit would runthus:(a)The Perambur Slaughter House, which is situated inPulianthope area covering 10 acres, existing for more than 100 yearsis a source of livelihood to the members of the Association and otherthousands of people who were dependent on the said slaughter houseand their livelihood is based on the work generated in the saidslaughter house. The Slaughter house is maintained by the ChennaiCorporation which is providing supply of meat and other relatedproducts to the residents of Chennai as well as to many otherestablishments.(b)The main activities in the said slaughter house are that ofcattle breeding, sheltering of cattle and goats and slaughtering ofcattle and goats for their meat. The skin of the cattle and goatsare also sold from this place to various industrial houses forproduction of leather products. During festival seasons like Diwali,Ramzan, Bakrid, Christmas and other functions like marriages, ritualcustoms, meat is sold to individuals in large scale. And this placeis also used by persons like Mulla and Laskar and licence has alsobeen issued by the respondent Corporation to the above mentionedpersons to continue their occupation in the said premises and apartfrom these, many people like Rodhas, who collect blood and otherinternal organs of the slaughtered cattle and goats, also depend onthe said slaughter house for their livelihood. (c)Apart from the said activities, goat and cattle aretransported to the said slaughter house and trading continues in theslaughter house and for generations together, the livelihood of aboutthousands of labourers who are economically poor and sociallybackward has been the slaughter house at Perambur, which ismaintained and run by the Chennai Corporation.(d)The Corporation of Chennai in consultation with theGovernment of Tamil Nadu took initiative to convert the old slaughterhouse into modern abattoir and after many deliberations andconsultations, in the year 2009, the said project of constructing themodern abattoir was given to M/s.Hind Agro Industries Limited, the3rd respondent herein, on DBOT (Design, Build, Operate and Transfer)basis. The said project is financed and supported by State andCentral Government subsidaries and is nearing completion and the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ abattoir is likely to be put into operation very shortly. (e)According to the petitioner, though they do not oppose themodernization of the slaughter house, the very essence of thelivelihood of thousands of people have not been taken intoconsideration. The said project deprives the livelihood of themembers of the Association as well as thousands of families who havebeen supported by the slaughter house by generation of work in thesaid existing slaughter house. The said project itself though saidto create a modernized environment to provide hygienic meat to theresidents of Chennai and other neighbourhoods, under the guise ofmodernization, the said slaughter house itself has turned into acommercial centre just to provide benefits to the 3rd respondentcompany as well as few individuals, thereby depriving the livelihoodof the people who have been in dependence of the said slaughter housefor generations together and the Corporation of Chennai as well asthe 3rd respondent has not come with any proposal to promote, protectand support the livelihood of the association members as well as thepersons dependent on the said slaughter house.(f)The petitioner has made representation dated 15.09.2011 tothe respondents to protect and support the livelihood of theirAssociation Members, but so far, no concrete proposal to protect thelivelihood of their association members has been given by therespondent Corporation. Left with no other effective alternativeremedy, the petitioner is before this court.3.The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, statingas follows:(a)The Modern Slaughter House coming up in Perambur in an areaof 9.408 acres is the first of its kind in Chennai and first ModernMunicipal abattoir in a Municipal Corporation in South India. TheCorporation has awarded work to M/s.Hind Agro Industries Limited, NewDelhi on DBOT (Design Build Operate and Transfer) basis for aconcession period of 22 years including the construction period of 20months. The DBOT operator has to pay a concession fee of Rs.40 lakhsper annum with 5% increase on compound basis to the Corporation ofChennai. There is no financial outflow from the Corporation ofChennai for this project. The priority shall be exclusively forslaughtering such a number of animals as may be determined by theCorporation of Chennai from time to time and for the use and benefitof the market transfers for local consumption at a pre-determinedtariff.(b)The built up area is 1,23,658 sq. ft. (2.84 acres). Thebuildings are constructed as per the norms laid down by theIndustries Department and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. Itis also designed to meet the requirements of not only the IndianMinistry of Food Processing Industries standards but also thestandards laid down by European Union and United States. There is an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ effluent treatment plant constructed as per the TNPCB guidelines forthe treatment of effluency from the plant.(c)The modern slaughter house has a capacity to slaughter 250small animals and 60 large animals per hour. The other salientfeatures are two mechanized slaughter lines for small animals, onefor big animals, walk-in-chillers to store 350 carcasses of cattleand 2000 carcasses of small animals, blast freezers and platefreezers. Apart from these, separate blood, offals and other wastecollection facilities, hide room, dung collection tank, sheeplairage, buffalo lairage, rendering plant, compost and fuel storageare also provided. All basic amenities are also taken care of inthis slaughter house. The above said slaughter house construction isalmost completed except the Rendering Plant, Compost, Biofilter,Lairages, roads and compound wall which awaits shifting of existingservice slaughtering to the newly constructed temporary facility. (d)The present slaughter house is used by local traders byemploying labourers on their own. No labourer is employed by theCorporation of Chennai for slaughtering of animals. Themodernization of the existing slaughter house will in no way affectthe livelihood of the local traders and butchers and all the improvedfacilities are provided to the local traders. (e)As per the Contract Agreement Clause 3.1 a (ii), the DBOTOperator will operate the plant in maximum of two shifts. Thepriority shall be exclusively for slaughtering such number of animalsas may be determined by the Corporation of Chennai from time to timeand for the use and benefit of market traders for local consumptionat the predetermined tariff. The local traders and butchers who areusing the present slaughter house will also use the modernizedslaughter house in future after inauguration. All the presentlabourers and butchers will in no way be affected due to themodernization of slaughter house.(f)The modern slaughter house is designed and constructed asper the Ministry of Food Processing Industries norms. The patheticcondition of the present slaughter house will be improved afterinstalling modern slaughter house and the livelihood of labourers andbutchers will also be improved and their income will also beincreased. As per the agreement between the Corporation of Chennaiand Hind Agro Industries Ltd., New Delhi, they should operate theplant in maximum two shifts and priority shall be exclusively forslaughtering such number of animals as may be determined by theCorporation of Chennai from time to time and the use and benefit ofthe market traders for local consumption of predetermined tariff. (g)The Corporation of Chennai entered into an agreement withthe 3rd respondent to safeguard the livelihood of the members of thepetitioner Association, who are all dependent on the presentslaughter house. They also made a representation on 15.09.2011 to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Corporation of Chennai for consideration. The Corporation ofChennai protects the interest of the members of the petitioner'sassociation and no way allowed the 3rd respondent to convert theabattoir into cold storage and also not permitted to promote its ownbusiness interest than the supply of hygiene meat to the residents ofChennai City and neighbourhood. (h)As per the Accountant General's report of the year 2007-2008, according to population ratio in Chennai City, 43 modernizedslaughter houses should have been constructed. The Corporation ofChennai has initiated to set up single modern slaughter house inChennai City after two years. This project was brought out only forpublic welfare as well as to maintain hygienic condition in slaughterhouse. At the same time, the present labourers will also getemployment opportunities without affecting their livelihood.4.In the additional counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent hasstated as follows:(a)In the interest of public health, the Corporation ofChennai has decided to modernize the Perambur Slaughter House on DBOTBasis and appointed M/s.G.K.Sen & Associates as Consultant to prepareDetailed Project Report. After consultation with M/s.G.K.Sen &Associates, the subject was placed before the Technical Committee andtenders were called for on 20.05.2008 by fixing concession period as14 years. But, on the due date of tender i.e. on 03.07.2008, notenders were received. Again, revising the concession period as 17years, re-tenders were called on 15.07.2008. On that date, i.e. on15.09.2008, no tenders were received. Hence, the concession periodwas again revised to 22 years (which includes constructionperiod of 20 months) and re-tenders were called on 07.10.2008 in 3rdcall. In the pre-bid meeting, nobody was present and as such, thedue date of tender was postponed from 28.11.2008 to 19.12.2008 againfrom 19.12.2008 to 09.01.2009 and finally from 09.01.2009 to23.01.2009. (b)In the first two calls, no bids were received. On the dateof submission of the third call, i.e. on 23.01.2009, single bid wasreceived from M/s.Hind Agro Industries Limited, New Delhi. Onscrutinizing the technical bid, it was found that M/s.Hind AgroIndustries Limited fulfilled the eligible criteria and qualified foropening of their price bid. Hence, the price bid was opened on02.02.2009 and the same was placed before the Council. The Councilhas accorded permission vide Resolution No.70/2009 dated 23.02.2009.Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has awarded work to M/s.Hind AgroIndustries Limited, New Delhi on DBOT basis for a concession periodof 22 years including the construction period of 20 months. The DBOToperator has to pay a concession fee of Rs.40 lakhs per annum with 5%increase on compounded basis to the Corporation of Chennai. There isno financial outflow from the Corporation of Chennai for thisproject. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (c)In order to meet the demands of Hygienic Meat in the city,to safeguard against possible danger of meat borne diseases andsickness, and facilities, the availability of good quality meatproducts to the public is desired to make improvement in the existingsystem of slaughtering animals at Perambur Slaughter House, Chennai.With the aforesaid objective and also on the direction of the SupremeCourt of India, the Corporation of Chennai proposed to establish amechanized slaughter house and processing plant at Perambur, Chennai.Hence, the Corporation of Chennai is interested to develop OldSlaughter House into new modernized Slaughter House and implement theproject on DBOT basis. With a view to achieve the goal, theCorporation of Chennai has also entered into an agreement with the3rd respondent covering all aspects on 25.03.2009. The saidagreement will be strictly followed by the Corporation of Chennaiwithout any deviation in future.(d)The labourers no way lost any employment after opening thenew modernized Slaughter House at Permabur. In the existing oldSlaughter House, the Corporation of Chennai appointed 35 SanitaryWorkers for collecting the slaughter house wastes and cleaningpurpose and their work was monitored and supervised by theConservancy Supervisors. The existing old slaughter house hasdirectly engaged 410 labourers daily from 4 am to 8 am forslaughtering goats and bulls. The Corporation of Chennai would denythe allegation that 806 labourers are denied employment in variousactivities in slaughtering work in the present old Slaughter house asstated in the additional typed set filed by the petitioner. The oldSlaughter House maintained by the Corporation of Chennai providesfacilities like place for slaughtering animals, light, water, etc.The Corporation has charged Rs.3.50 per goat and Rs.10/- per bullfrom the butchers. The Corporation also provides 3 VeterinaryDoctors for examination of animals, which is found fit forslaughtering and they were issued certificates to that effect. Themerchants who come from outside the city bring animals to theslaughter house during midnight and engage butchers. In the existingSlaughter House, normally 1000 to 1200 sheeps and goats and 100 to150 cattle were slaughtered in week days. Further, during Sundays,4000 to 5000 goats and 200 to 250 cattle were slaughtered. In weekdays, normally 410 direct labourers are engaged for butchering,sticking, cleaning, etc. During Sundays, only maximum of 806labourers are involved for slaughtering work. (e)All the labourers, who work in the existing slaughter housewill also do the same work in Modernized Slaughter house. In theModernised Slaughter House, 250 animals are slaughtered per hour.The present labourers will get first shift, i.e. during 3.00am and8.00am and they can slaughter 1000 sheeps and goats and 250 cattle inthe Modernized Slaughter House within 4 hours. Even though they canwork on Sundays, after taking maximum hours depending upon thecapacity for slaughtering, no hurdles and hesitations will arise to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ do their work in the new modernized system. The petitioner feelsthat the new modernized Slaughter House will be used for promotingbusiness activities of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent hasagreed the same with the Corporation of Chennai in Clause 3.1.a(ii)of the Agreement.(f)Persons involved in other activities like merchants, whosell goats, meat and shop owners who run around the city also do thesame work as usual. Most of the direct labourers will doslaughtering work as part-time job daily at least 2 to 3 hours everyday and they are employed somewhere after finishing the slaughteringwork in the morning. In respect of indirect merchants, labourers andagents, their business and employment are no way affected even afterthe opening of modernized Slaughter House. All the other activitiesare presently done by the merchants and agents, who do their businesseven after opening modernized Slaughter House.(g)In Chennai City, other two slaughter Houses in Villivakkamand Saidapet are now running with all facilities. In those SlaughterHouses, 100 to 150 sheeps and goats are slaughtered on all week daysand 200 to 250 sheeps and goats are slaughtered on Sundays. Themaximum capacity is 500 to 750 animals in Villivakkam and SaidapetSlaughter Houses. The labourers who are presently working in theexisting Slaughter House at Perambur may also be utilized in theVillivakkam and Saidapet Slaughter Houses. Villivakkam is at adistance of 3 kms from Perambur and not a far off place. Allfacilities such as slaughtering place, water, electricity, etc. areprovided in Villivakkam and Saidapet. According to the 2ndrespondent, members of the petitioner Association may utilize ModernSlaughter House from midnight to morning up to maximum level reachedby them. Further, they can also be permitted to utilize ModernSlaughter House during festival seasons like Deepavalli, Christmasand Ramzan. 5.The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit, statingas follows :(i)With an objective to meet the demand of hygienic meat inthe city and to safeguard against possible danger of meat bornediseases and sickness, and facilitate availability of good qualitymeat products to the public and with a desire to make improvement inthe existing system of slaughtering animals, the Corporation ofChennai proposed to establish a mechanized slaughter house andprocessing plant at Perambur, Chennai. The project compromisesdevelopment, design, financing, construction, operation, maintenanceand transfer of the said plant. (ii)To develop and implement the said project on DBOT basis,the 3rd respondent submitted their bid to the 2nd respondent. Afterevaluation, the 2nd respondent accepted the bid submitted by the 3rdrespondent for implementing the Project. On 25.03.2009, ConcessionAgreement was entered into between the 2nd and 3rd respondents in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order to develop the project with the terms and conditions providedthereon. (iii)Article 1 of the Concession Agreement deals withDefinition clause and Article 2 deals with Scope of the project.Clause 2.1 deals with the Scope of the project i.e. shall mean andinclude(a)Development, design, financing, constructionand establishment of a Modern Slaughter House Plant andother related facilities complete in all respectsincluding rendering and ETP together with the provisionsof Project Equipment and in conformity with thespecification and standard set forth under Section (d)and (e) of RFP Document. (b)Management, Operation and Maintenance of thePlant during the Concession period as per Article 12 ofthe Agreement;(c)Providing Slaughter House facility of therequired capacity to the users and traders at the rateindicated in the RFP and during such period as may bedetermined by the COC from time to time;(d)The Concessionaire shall develop the projectwithout affecting the present operation of PeramburSlaughter House in phases as per the direction of COC;Article 5 deals with concession :Sec.5.1. - Concession project of site(a)COC shall grant to the concessionaire landunder a project site concession for a period of 20years. If the COC so decides in its exclusive andsole discretion, it may extend the period ofconcession for such other period as may be considerednecessary or reasonable.(b)COC shall deliver to the Concessionairepossession of the project site within 60 days fromthe date of execution of Concession Agreement;Article 6 deals with obligation of parties :Section 6.1 deals with obligation of COC and 6.2deals with obligation of Concessionaire.Article 10 deals with Right of Way and Article 1 deals withutilities and road.Article 12 deals with construction, operations and maintenance.Section 12.1 deals with construction of facilities:(a)Concessionaire shall undertake at his costand expenses development, implementation, design,construction, completion, testing and commissioning ofthe Plant and the facilities in accordance with theprudent practices and the terms and conditions of theAgreement. Section 12.4 deals with operation and maintenance. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Article 12 deals with User-free/Service charges Article 20.1 reads as follows :On and from the COC till the transfer date, theConcessionaire shall operate the Plant in a maximum of2 shifts of 8 hours each. In the first shift, itshall have the right to demand, collect appropriatefee/service charges from the users as may bedetermined by COC from time to time. The COC shalldetermine from time to time the minimum number ofanimals that must be slaughtered in the first shift.Any violation of this provision shall be aconcessionaire event of default.Article 20.2 – For use of operation in the second shift, theConcessionaire shall have the right to process his own materialsand/or other materials in the plant for his own business purpose.(iv)The Corporation of Chennai awarded the work to the 3rdrespondent on DBOT basis for a Concession of 22 years. The 3rdrespondent can develop the project without affecting the presentoperations at Perambur Slaughter House in phases as per the directionof the Corporation.(v)Slaughtering at the present location is done in anunhygienic manner, thus endangering the health of the consumer.Hence, in order to meet the demand of hygienic meat in the city, the2nd respondent called for tender and the 3rd respondent wassuccessful in the bid for construction of a modern Slaughter Houseunder the Public-Private Partnership mode in the place of the olddilapidated, unhygienic slaughter house constructed in 1903, duringBritish period. (vi)On 03.06.2009, the Agreement was signed and the First Phaseof construction was completed and is ready for operation. The 3rdrespondent is also ready to commence construction of the Second Phaseof the Plant. Phase I was built for one Slaughter Line for largeranimals and two numbers of Slaughter Line for small animals withoutaffecting the butchers. Phase II which comprises of lairages forCattle and Sheep, Rendering Plant Compost Boiler house, etc at thesite has to be constructed. (vii)On the advice of the 2nd respondent, the 3rdrespondent had to undertake the construction of additional facilityat an additional cost of Rs.2 crores in order to accommodate thebutchers to be shifted to the new modern facilities, withoutaffecting their livelihood and daily routine trade. But, the 2ndrespondent has not taken any effective steps to move the butchers orto shift the butchers to custom built additional facilities. Thebutchers and traders working there were not co-operating and creatinghurdles. The 3rd respondent has specifically requested the policeand the 2nd respondent to take effective steps to prevent thebutchers and traders from creating further problems. But, no action https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has been taken by the 2nd respondent to ameliorate the sufferings ofthe 3rd respondent. (viii)The trade carried on by the butchers is not in any waygoing to be affected by commissioning and operationalization ofModern Slaughter House, which is more hygienic and set up with a viewto safeguard against possible danger of meat-borne diseases andsickness. Further, the 3rd respondent has also constructedadditional modern facilities based on the request made by the 2ndrespondent and butchers Association for further improvement ofbutchers, without affecting their normal trade and employment.(ix)The 2nd respondent floated a tender for construction of anew hygienic slaughter house based on the advice given by the SupremeCourt of India. But, the traders are continuing their trade in thepresent location and supplying unhygienic meat to the consumers,affecting their health which may result into a big epidemic. The netresult is that public interest is affected despite the Supreme Courtof India advising to start a new Slaughter House. The constructedplace has to be put in use only as a slaughter House and not to beused for any other purpose other than the purpose for which it wasoriginally conceived. Further, Rules and Regulations of the Food,Safety and Standard Authority of India Act, promulgated on05.08.2011, clearly prohibits the use of the Slaughter House forbreeding of cattle/cattle market sheltering of cattle and goats. Theaim of the Act is to provide good quality of safe meat for consumers.The Traders and butchers are deboning and cutting meat in open andunder unhygienic conditions. But, the traders are adamant in movingto the newly constructed hygienic Slaughter House.(x)The 3rd respondent obtained consent from Tamil NaduPollution Control Board (in short 'TNPCB) on 21.09.2011 under Section21 of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amendedand the consent is valid up to 31.03.2012, along with conditions. On21.09.2011, the 3rd respondent also obtained consent from the TNPCBunder Section 25 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution)Act, 1974, as amended, with conditions. The 3rd respondent has alsoprovided facilities like collection of hides and skin and otherslaughter house bye products, effluent treatment plant to ensurehygienic environment for production and in order to ensure supply ofsafe and quality meat to the public. (xi)Following are the facilities provided in the Slaughterhouses:(a)White Zone which is clean from where finalproduct is taken out;(b)Black Zone where the living animals arebrought and kept in the resting pens;(c)Adequate potable water facilities areprovided for drinking and cleaning, etc. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Entire facilities have been provided by the 3rd respondent byspending about Rs.34 crores for construction of Modern SlaughterHouse and 2 crores for construction of additional facilities.(xii)Based on the instruction carried out by theCorporation of Chennai, additional facilities were provided in theinterest of butchers and traders. The 3rd respondent, at the requestof the Corporation has spent additional amount to provide waterfacilities, electrical installations, drainage and effluent treatmentplant, etc apart from 34 crores already spent by them. But theCorporation keeps on promising that they will shift the butchers tothe new additional facility so as to complete phase II constructioni.e. lairages, rendering plant and Boiler house Compost, etc. Evenafter our repeated requests to COC, the butchers were not shifted tothe new additional facility. The question of losing livelihood, asclaimed by the Association does not arise as additional facilitieshave been provided only taking into consideration theirapprehensions, etc. (xiii)The question of submitting a proposal is the duty ofthe Corporation of Chennai and the 3rd respondent has nothing to dowith the same. In fact, the 3rd respondent has fulfilled all thecommitments envisaged in the agreement and Phase I, which is modern,hygienic and with all facilities is ready, but due to extraneousconsiderations, the Association is advising their members not to movefor reasons best known to them and the 3rd respondent has no role toplay in this regard. (xiv)The effluent from the old slaughter house is directlydischarged into the Sewerage Line despite the Pollution ControlBoard's instructions not to do so. The 3rd respondent is also notable to take up a separate water line to strengthen the hygieniccondition due to the non-moving of the members to the new facility asthen only this can be carried out.(xv)The 3rd respondent's repeated requests to the Corporationof Chennai to shift the workers to the new facility has not elicitedany positive response. Similarly, the respondent's request forpolice protection has also not been considered so far. All thefacilities are in place and the Association members can move to newfacilities any time. The doubts raised about their livelihood isimaginary and it is only a myth. The claim that 4000 to 5000 workersare working at the old slaughter house is false and exaggerated.There are only 400 to 500 workers and they too are employed byprivate contractors. Their employment depends on the number ofanimals slaughtered every day and the number of workers actuallyworking on a particular day would depend on the number of animalsslaughtered. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (xvi)The 3rd respondent submits that the traders are not inany way going to be affected by shifting to the additional facility;on the other hand, the working condition and the livelihood ofbutchers would be improved or those who are involved in the trade asthey would continue to operate under modern facilities in order toprovide quality and safe meat to the consumers. Meat is a highlyperishable commodity and hence, animal meat has to be chilled andrefrigerated so as to improve the shelf life of meat.(xvii)They have already invested over Rs.36 crores and thebutchers should be shifted to the new facility. The 3rd respondenthas provided in the premises facilities to provide hygienic meat tothe consumers and failure to commence the first Phase would delay thesecond phase and public interest will suffer. The 3rd respondent hasalready suffered loss due to non-shifting of the members to the newlymade additional facility and has been incurring with every day delayin shifting. He would reiterate that the modernization plant would,in no way affect either the Leaders or Members of the Association.On the other hand, the local traders and butchers will be immenselybenefited once the newly built modern Slaughter House commences itsoperations. (xviii) Article 3 of the Construction Agreement clearlystates that the 3rd respondent should operate the plants and make ittwo shifts and priority should be to slaughter animals as may bedetermined by the 2nd respondent from time to time and for thebenefit of market traders for local consumption at a pre-determinedtariff. Hence, the allegation that it will be used for cold storageis based on imaginary grounds. 6.The 3rd respondent has also filed a Memo to the followingeffect:"3.The prayer in the writ petition is a writ ofmandamus seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent toprepare a proposal protecting and safeguarding thelivelihood of the members of the petitioner Associationbefore commencing the service of the Perambur ModernAbattoir/Slaughter Houses.4.The 3rd respondent has constructed the mostmodern Slaughter House in the place of most unhygienicslaughter house constructed during 1903.5.The most modern Slaughter House is a State-of-the-Art Plant and it is going to ensure hygienicenvironment for production and supply of quality meatto the general public. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.This respondent has already spent about Rs.34crores for construction of the Modern Slaughter House.Though there is no obligation to provide any additionalfacility, on the advice of the 2nd respondent, thisrespondent has undertaken additional facilities toprotect the livelihood of the existing slaughterers,which is having 27,000 sq. ft. area and apart fromthis, area has also been allotted for animal holdingand vehicle parking. This additional facility islocated directly opposite to the existing slaughteringfacility distanced at only about 25 feet. 7.This respondent, after completion of thesecond Phase as per the Standard practice of MeatIndustry, will have to hire the required manpowerdepending upon the technical, physical and medicalfitness. This respondent may be willing to considersuch of those existing slaughterers who satisfy therecruitment norms of this respondent i.e. theirtechnical, physical and medical fitness for suitablejob/jobs.8.This respondent submits that the existingslaughterers are not employees of the Corporation ofChennai and there is no Master and Servant relationshipbetween them. They come, slaughter the animals andremain the place for hardly two to three hours and goaway. Therefore, it is misnomer to say that they areemployees of the Corporation of Chennai. 9.This respondent also submits that thelivelihood of the slaughterers will in no way beaffected, if they are directed to utilize theadditional facilities constructed at the cost of Rs.2crores where they will be able to continue slaughteringof sheep and the cattle as before, especially when thearea is more than 4 times of the existing slaughterarea which has no roof or proper flooring or any placefor collecting the blood of slaughtered animals. In the above circumstances, this Hon'ble Court maybe pleased to permit the respondent to commence thetrial production at the new Modern Slaughtering Housewithout further loss of time as the respondent isincurring heavy loss on the passage of every day. 10.It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'bleCourt may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition andthus render justice." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7.Mr.M.Velmurugan, learned counsel for the petitioner wouldcontend that it is the bounden duty of the Corporation of Chennai toprotect the livelihood of the people in the manner known to law. Itis his further contention that the 3rd respondent is attempting toconvert the abattoir into cold storage, thereby deviating from thevery proposal of constructing the modern slaughter house just topromote its own business interest than the supply of hygienic meat tothe residents of Chennai City and neighbourhood. He would submitthat the 2nd respondent should give a clear proposal regarding theoperation of the abattoir to ensure the livelihood of the members oftheir Association.8.Mr.Arunmozhi, learned counsel for the second respondentwould submit that the project in question is for the welfare of thepublic to maintain hygienic conditions in slaughter house and thateverything will be taken care of and that the terms and conditionswill be strictly followed by the respondent Corporation as per theagreement.9.Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the3rd respondent would submit that the 3rd respondent has made allfacilities in the new premises to provide hygienic meat to theconsumers and failure to commence the first phase would delay thesecond phase and public interest will suffer. He would also submitthat the local traders and butchers will be immensely benefited oncethe newly built modern Slaughter House commences its operations. 10.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and alsogone through the records.11. Admittedly, the Perambur Slaughter House, which is situatedin Pulianthope area, covering about 10 acres, is in existence formore than 100 years and is being maintained by the Corporation ofChennai. It is a unit, providing supply of meat and other relatedproducts to the residents of Chennai as well as to many otherestablishments. In the said slaughter house, there are activities ofcattle breeding, sheltering of cattle and goats and slaughtering ofcattle and goats. The skin of the cattle and goats is also sold tovarious industrial houses for production of leather products. Duringfestival seasons and other functions like marriages, meat is sold toindividuals in large scale. This place is also used by persons likeMulla and Laskar and licence has also been issued by the respondentCorporation to various persons to continue their occupation in thesaid premises.12. With an objective to meet the demands of hygienic meatin the city and to safeguard against possible danger of meat bornediseases and facilities; to make availability of good quality meatproducts to the public and to make improvement in the existing systemof slaughtering of animals, the Corporation of Chennai proposed to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ establish a Modern Slaughter House at Perambur, Chennai, in an areaof 9.408 acres to be the first of its kind among the MunicipalCorporations in South India, for which it called for tenders,pursuant to which the third respondent submitted a bid to the secondrespondent and after evaluation of the tender, the second respondentaccepted the bid for implementing the project and awarded the work toM/s.Hind Agro Industries Limited, New Delhi, on DBOT basis for aconcession period of 22 years including the construction period of 20months. As per the agreement, the DBOT operator has to pay aconcession fee of Rs.40.00 lakhs per annum with 5% increase oncompound basis to the Corporation of Chennai. The built up area is2.84 acres, which comes to about 1,23,658 sq. ft. After the award ofwork, the buildings are constructed as per the norms laid down by theIndustries Department and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.They are designed to meet the requirements of not only the IndianMinistry of Food Processing Industries standards but also thestandards laid down by European Union and United States. There is aneffluent treatment plant constructed as per the TNPCB guidelines forthe treatment of effluence from the plant.13. The modern slaughter house has a capacity to slaughter250 small animals and 60 large animals per hour. The other salientfeatures are : two mechanized slaughter lines for small animals, onefor big animals, walk-in-chillers to store 350 carcasses of cattleand 2000 carcasses of small animals, blast freezers and platefreezers. These apart, separate blood, offals and other wastecollection facilities, hide room, dung collection tank, sheeplairage, buffalo lairage, rendering plant, compost and fuel storageare also provided. All basic amenities are also taken care of inthis slaughter house. The construction of this slaughter house isalmost completed. At this stage, the petitioner association has comebefore this Court for a direction to the second respondent to preparea proposal protecting and safeguarding the livelihood of the membersof the petitioner association before commencing the service of theslaughter house.14. The stand of the second respondent is that they floatedtenders for construction of a new hygienic slaughter house based onthe advice given by the Supreme Court of India, but, the traders arecontinuing their trade in the present location and supplyingunhygienic meat to the consumers, affecting their health, which mayresult in an epidemic. The constructed place has to be put in useonly as a slaughter House and not to be used for any other purposeother than the purpose for which it is originally conceived. Further,Rules and Regulations of the Food, Safety and Standard Authority ofIndia Act, promulgated on 05.08.2011, clearly specify the use of theSlaughter House for breeding of cattle/cattle market sheltering ofcattle and goats. The aim of the Act is to provide good quality ofmeat for consumers. However, the traders and butchers are deboningand cutting meat in open and under unhygienic conditions and areadamant in moving to the newly constructed hygienic Slaughter House. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. The stand of the third respondent/DBOT operator is thatthe traders are not in any way going to be affected by shifting tothe additional facility, but, instead, the working condition and thelivelihood of butchers would be improved and those who are involvedin the trade would continue to operate under modern facilities inorder to provide quality and safe meat to the consumers. They havefulfilled all the commitments envisaged in the agreement and Phase I,which is modern, hygienic and with all facilities, is ready, but dueto extraneous considerations, the petitioner association is advisingits members not to move to the newly constructed slaughter house, forthe reasons best known to them and the 3rd respondent has no role toplay in respect of the request of the petitioner association forprotection and safeguarding the livelihood of its members.16. It is true that when one establishment is going to bechanged, there is a likelihood of change of guard or structure,including its employees. It is seen from the pleadings of therespondents that the members of the petitioner association are notdirectly in employment either under the second respondent or thethird respondent. It is stated by the second respondent in paragraph8 of the counter that the pathetic condition of the present slaughterhouse will be improved after installing modern slaughter house soalso the livelihood of labourers and butchers and their income willalso be increased. It is also stated by the second respondent inparagraph 9 of the counter that the Corporation entered into anagreement with the third respondent to safeguard the livelihood ofthe members of the petitioner association who are all dependent onthe present slaughter house. The second respondent also admitted thatthe petitioner association submitted a representation on 15.09.2011and the same would be considered and suitable orders passed. Inaddition, it is also assured that it would protect the interests ofthe members of the petitioner association and that it would not allowthe third respondent to convert the abattoir into cold storage soalso to promote its own business interest than the supply of hygienicmeat to the residents of Chennai city and neighbourhood. It is alsoaverred that it will take every care to see that the abattoir is runstrictly following the terms and conditions of the agreement.17. In this context, it is relevant to mention that as perthe Accountant General's report of the year 2007-2008, according topopulation ratio in Chennai City, 43 modernized slaughter housesshould have been constructed. Therefore, the Corporation of Chennaihas decided to set up a single modern slaughter house in ChennaiCity. This project has been brought out only for public welfare aswell as to maintain hygienic condition in slaughter house. At thesame time, the present labourers will also get employmentopportunities, without their livelihood being affected. In the givensituation, it may be stated that though the petitioner has attemptedto stall the commencement of the service of the project of the thirdrespondent, the second respondent has been kind enough to protect and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ safeguard the interests of the association. Equally, the thirdrespondent also has consistently stated before this Court that theyhave provided every arrangement for the members of the petitionerassociation in the modern slaughter house for their continuance ofwork as is done in the existing one.18. When such being the stand of respondents 2 and 3, whichincludes the assurance to safeguard and protect the interests of themembers of the petitioner association, I am of the considered opinionthat except to record the said statement, it is not for this Court tosit over the project that too at the stage of completion and grantthe relief as prayed for by the petitioner, especially when theproject is under DBOT scheme. Accordingly, recording the statementsof respondents 2 and 3, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Whiledoing so, the claim of the petitioner for protection and safeguardingthe livelihood of its members before commencement of the services ofthe Perambur modern Slaughter House is rejected, as the respondents 2and 3 followed necessary process in a tender and, after assignment ofsuch work, the third respondent completed the project and the same isin the stage of commencement. As such, the third respondent mayproceed with the commissioning of the project. No costs.Consequently, the connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed.abe/dixitSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1.The District Collector,Singaravelar Maligai,Rajaji Salai,Chennai 600 001.2.The Corporation of Chennai,Ripon Buildings,Chennai 600 003.3.M/s.Hind Agro Industries Limited,A-1, Phase – I, Okhla Industrial Area,New Delhi – 110 020.+ 1 cc to Mr. A. Kavi Mani, Advocate SR No.5573+ 1 cc to Mr. V. Perumal, Advocate SR No.5333+ 1 cc to M/s. R. Arunmozhi, Advocate SR No.5328+ 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.5482GV(CO)SR/2.2.2012 order in W.P.No.25910 of 2011