S. B. SINHA, CJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioners 1 to 4 are Sarpanchas of different Gram panchayats situate in Bhimavaram Mandal. The petitioners 5 and 6 are residents of the said Mandal. ( 2 ) BEING aggrieved by a proposal to grant licence for running slaughter house in favour of respondent No. 8 by the first respondent herein, the present writ petition is filed. ( 3 ) THE primary contention of the petitioners is that the slaughter house proposed to be set up which is situate on the right bank of New Yerramadduru drain on the left bank of Losari Irrigation main channel would create various ecological problems. The drain and the said channel run parallel to the extent of few kilometers. The villages of the petitioners are located on the right side of the Losari Irrigation main channel which is the source of water not only for irrigation for thousands of acres of wet lands, but also for drinking water of the villagers. The petitioners contend that if the slaughter house is permitted to be set up on the bund, which is common for both the irrigation and the drain, the same will have a devastating effect on the health of thousands of people as also affect the fertility of the lands. If the slaughter house is permitted to operate, the waste material such as skin, bones, flesh, blood etc. , will be dumped in the irrigation channel. ( 4 ) THEY made a representation on 16. 10. 2000 to the respondent which was received on 17. 10. 2000. The fifth respondent also addressed letter to the respondent municipality to take appropriate action, but a resolution was passed on 18. 10. 2000 itself permitting the construction of beef slaughter house in favour of the eighth respondent. ( 5 ) THE respondent Municipality contends that they have a statutory function to perform for making provision for a municipal slaughter house in terms of section 271 of the A. P. Municipalities act, 1965. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 wherein it has been contended that as there is sufficient gap between Yanamadduru drain and Losari main irrigation channel and as all the used and waste water will be drained into the said Yanamadduru drain which is a main drain joining Bay of bengal, the apprehension of the petitioner is misconceived. It is also stated that the effluents of Andhra Paper Mills and Andhra sugar Factory wastages are also drained out in the same drain. ( 6 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Pollution Control Board to the effect that no construction activity has taken place yet. According to the Pollution control Board, the Municipal Health Officer has informed that they would be discharging their effluents into Yanamadduru drain after treatment. ( 7 ) SECTION 271 of the said Act enjoins a duty upon the Municipality to provide sufficient number of places for use as municipal slaughter houses wherefor they would be entitled to charge rents and fees thereof. Section 271 (3) provides that such slaughter house may be established with the sanction of the Government outside the municipality. ( 8 ) A resolution was adopted by the first respondent on 18. 10. 2000. The agenda for the meeting which was placed before the municipal Council General Body Meeting held on 18. 10. 2000 was: on the representation of Muslim Social welfare Association for the construction of beef Slaughter House in Bhimavaram town, the Municipality requested the Executive engineer, Irrigation Department, Bhimavaram to provide 30 cents of land either on lease or sale basis and thereupon the Executive engineer, Irrigation Department, Bhimavaram addressed a letter in DB/g3 1072 M dated 26. 9. 2000 accepting to lease out an extent of 20. 66 cents at KM 29/6 on the right hank of new Yanamadduru drain for a period of one year to Bhimavaram Municipality on payment of Rs. 600/- and the said letter is read over. While requesting the Council to request the revenue Department for fixation of rentals for the said land and while informing that the residents of 32nd ward have raised objections for allotment of land to municipality by the Irrigation Department for Beef Slaughter House the matter is placed before the Council for its decision. ( 9 ) THE proposal was accepted by the said resolution with one Rayaprolu srinivasamurthy, Ward Member expressing his dissent. ( 10 ) IT is not in dispute that some owners of the lands have also sought for licences to establish and run the slaughter house. ( 11 ) THE Executive Engineer, Irrigation department cannot transfer the land belonging to the State. ( 10 ) IT is not in dispute that some owners of the lands have also sought for licences to establish and run the slaughter house. ( 11 ) THE Executive Engineer, Irrigation department cannot transfer the land belonging to the State. The transfer of the state land must conform to the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution and the government Grants Act. The resolution of the Municipality accepting the proposal of the Executive Engineer for grant of temporary lease of 30 cents of land on the tank bund is therefore patently illegal. ( 12 ) NO sanction of the Government has yet been obtained for construction of municipal Slaughter Houses outside the municipality. Furthermore, no licences can be granted for slaughter houses by the municipality outside the municipal area keeping in view the provisions of Section 272 of the Act. Sections 272 and 273 of the Act reads thus: 272. Licence for slaughter houses:the owner of any place within municipal limits or at a distance within three kilometers of such limits which is used as a slaughter house for the slaughtering of animals or for the skinning or cutting up of any carcasses shall apply to the Municipal Health Officer for a licence not less than thirty days and not more than ninety days before the opening of such place as a slaughter house, or the commencement of the year for which the licence is sought to be renewed as the case may be: provided that this sub-section shall not take effect in any area outside the municipal limits except with the previous sanction of the government. The Municipal Health Officer may, by an order and subject to such restrictions and regulations as to supervision and inspection as he thinks fit, grant, or refuse to grant such licence. 273. Slaughter of animals for sale as food: no person shall slaughter within the municipality except in a public or licensed slaughter house any cattle, horse, sheep, goat or pig, or any other animal for sale as food or skin or cut up any carcass without or otherwise than in conformity with a licence from the Municipal Health Officer for dry or permit to be dried any skin in such a manner as cause a nuisance. ( 13 ) A bare perusal of the aforementioned provisions clearly shows that no person is permitted to slaughter an animal within the municipal area except in a public or licensed slaughter house under section 273. Such licences can only been granted as noticed hereinbefore at a place which would be within the municipal area or not outside thereof. It has not been denied that the effluents shall be drained to yerramadduru drain which joins Bay of bengal. The first respondent in its resolution dated 18. 10. 2000 has not taken into consideration the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) act, 1974, Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the Air (Prevention and Control of pollution) Act, 1981. ( 14 ) THERE cannot be any doubt whatsoever that if a large scale slaughtering is allowed, the same shall also emit foul smell which would be in violation of section 3 of Environment (Protection) act, 1986. In fact, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 3 of the environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the apex Court in M. C. Mehta v. Union of india, 2001 0 AIR (SCW) 2354, directed the agra Nagar Nigam to close down all slaughter houses at Nagla Mewat near Taj mahal. Prevention is better than cure. Construction of a slaughter house should not be allowed which would cause a large scale pollution having regard to the precautions a slaughter house is to be constructed, the same should not be allowed having regard to the precautionary principle unless the statutory authorities satisfy themselves that steps have been taken for compliance of the all statutory requirements. No environmental impact study has been made. It is not the case of the respondents that there is absolutely no chance of ecological imbalance. ( 15 ) IN M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, air 1988 SC 1115 , it was observed: in common law the Municipal Corporation can be restrained by an injunction in an action brought by a riparian owner who has suffered on account of the pollution of the water in a river caused by the corporation by discharging into the river insufficiently treated sewage from discharging such sewage into the river. In Pride of Derby and derbyshire Angling Association v. British celanese Ltd. , (1953) Ch 149, the second defendant, the Derby Corporation admitted that it had polluted the plaintiff s fishery in the river Derwent by discharging into it insufficiently treated sewage, but claimed that by the Derby Corporation Act, 1901 it was under a duty to provide a sewerage system, and that the system which had accordingly been provided had become inadequate solely from the increase in the population of Derby. The Court of appeal held that it was not inevitable that the work constructed under the Act of 1901 should cause a nuisance, and that in any case the Act on its true construction did not authorise the commission of a nuisance. The petitioner in the case before us is no doubt not a riparian owner. He is a person interested in protecting the lives of the people who make use of the water flowing in the river Ganga and his right to maintain the petition cannot be disputed. The nuisance caused by the pollution of the river Ganga is a public nuisance, which is wide spread in range and indiscriminate in its effect and it would not be reasonable to expect any particular person to take proceedings to stop it as distinct from the community at large. The petition has been entertained as a Public Interest Litigation. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to move this Court in order to enforce the statutory provisions which impose duties on the municipal authorities and the Boards constituted under the Water act. We have already set out the relevant provisions of the statute which impose those duties on the authorities concerned. On account of their failure to obey the statutory duties for several years the water in the river Ganga at Kanpur has become so much polluted that it can no longer be used by the people either for drinking or for bathing. The Nagar mahapalika of Kanpur has to bear the major responsibility for the pollution of the river near Kanpur City. ( 16 ) IN Subhash Kumar v. State of bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420 , the Apex Court observed: article 32 is designed for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights of a citizen by the apex Court. The Nagar mahapalika of Kanpur has to bear the major responsibility for the pollution of the river near Kanpur City. ( 16 ) IN Subhash Kumar v. State of bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420 , the Apex Court observed: article 32 is designed for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights of a citizen by the apex Court. It provides for an extraordinary procedure to safeguard the Fundamental rghts of a citizen. Right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. ( 17 ) IN M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, AIR 2000 SC 1997 , it was held: one of the fundamental duties of every citizen as set out in Article 51 A (g) is to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. These two Articles have to be considered in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Any disturbance of the basic environment elements, namely air, water and soil, which are necessary for life would be hazardous to life within the meaning of article 21 of the Constitution. ( 18 ) IN M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2001) 4 SCC 577 , Banerjee, J. , referred to his earlier judgment of Calcutta High Court in People United For Better Living in calcutta v. State of W. B. , AIR 1993 Cal. 215 . ( 19 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondent No. 1 shall not accord any permission for construction of any slaughter house unless all the statutory mandates are complied with. No costs.