JUDGMENT : In Writ Petition (C) No. 309 of 2003: By order dated 3rd October, 2005, to he-in with, this Court directed only five States, namely, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu as also the Pollution Control Board of these States to file detailed responses with regard to the compliance with the provisions of the Environmental Laws by the slaughter houses in their respective States. Responses have not been tiled by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. As requested, three weeks' time is granted to the Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board and the State of Tamil Nadu to file responses in terms of the order dated 3rd October, 2005. 2. It appears that there is hardly proper machinery for the implementation of laws that are enacted, including the laws enacted in exercise of delegated power of legislation, as is apparent in the present case concerning protection of environment. Realising the acute need to protect environment, amendments were made in the Constitution of India and Article 48-A inserted and various laws were also enacted, including Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In exercise of power conferred by Sections 6 and 25 of the said Act, the Central Government made Rules in terms of Notification dated 19th November, 1986. Rule 3 provides for standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants. It, interalia, provides that, for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing and abating environmental pollution, the standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants from the industries, operations or processes shall be as specified in Schedules I to IV. It further provides that the standards for emission etc., as specified under sub-rule (1) or (2), shall be complied with by industry, operation or process within a period of one year of being so specified. Rule 3A provides that: "(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2), on and from the Ist day of January, 1994, emission or discharge of environmental pollutants from the industries, operations or process other than those industries, operations or processes for which standards have been specified in Schedule I shall not exceed the relevant parameters and standards specified in Schedule IV." It further permits the State Boards to specify stringent standards for relevant parameters with respect to specific industry or locations after recording reasons thereof in writing. Under Rule 2(i), "standards" means standards prescribed under the Rules. Insofar as the slaughter houses are concerned, the parameters and standards are as provided in Entry 50 of Schedule I. It was inserted by Notification dated 21st February, 1991. Certain other parameters were provided in. terms of Notification dated 2nd April, 1996. 3. We have perused the affidavit filed by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, a reading whereof shows that the said Board did not even know about the requirement of the Rules and, consequently, the requirement of complying with the parameters and the standards laid down in the Rules. It did not even have with it the addresses of the slaughter houses. The notices were, therefore, released through local newspaper, as per the Board, on 29th July, 2005, asking slaughter houses to apply for consent before 10th August, 2005. Further particulars given in the affidavit show that out of 123 applications received from various applicants in the fourteen district of the States, only two have been granted consent and seventy three provisional consent, which is subject to the compliance of various conditions incorporated in the affidavit regarding hygiene and stagging of animals, their cleaning, segregation, etc. 4. In the affidavit of the State of Kerala, reference has been made to Centrally Sponsored Scheme for modernisation/ improvement of Slaughter Houses under which assistance for modernisation of some slaughter houses is given. That Scheme seems to be under Local Self Government Department (Urban), Government of India. Neither the learned Additional Solicitor General nor the counsel appearing for the Central Pollution Control Board nor for any of the State Pollution Control Boards was able to assist the court as to the nature of the said Scheme and when was it introduced. Regarding the requirement of Rule 3 for compliance of the standards of emission, etc. within a period of one year of it being so specified, on being asked whether there is any mechanism under which the authorities are informed of the requirement of complying with the Rules, no assistance was forthcoming. There does not appear to be any mechanism in place to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Act or the Rules, referred to above. There does not appear to be any mechanism in place to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Act or the Rules, referred to above. It is highly desirable that when an Act and/or Rules are framed and standards laid, self- contained mechanism simultaneously must ensure compliance of such a law, besides making aware those about such law, who are likely to be affected by it and also those who have to implement the same. Taking the illustration of smaller slaughter houses in existence, which maybe operational in a small village or town, the requirement to comply with the hygienic conditions may be more acute. It may also be necessary for the concerned Departments/ Ministries to effectively monitor whether such laws are being implemented or not. The learned Additional Solicitor General prays for a short adjournment to look into these and all connected matters and file a detailed affidavit as to the steps which were taken in relation to the implementation of the various provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and Rules framed thereunder and standards and parameters to be complied with under the said Act as also what steps, if any, were taken to create awareness among the general public. The affidavit shall also state what further steps are proposed to be taken in this regard. The learned Additional Solicitor General may, if necessary, also discuss it with the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. In fact, it is necessary by an institutional mechanism to lay down appropriate steps to be taken by concerned officers and persons to ensure implementation of laws and to take appropriate steps to make general public, likely to be affected, aware of such laws. The affidavit shall also state as to the nature of the Centrally Sponsored Scheme. The affidavits on behalf of the Union of India shall be filed within a period of four weeks. 5. List the writ petition after five weeks. In Writ Petition (C) No.330 of 2001: 6. Our attention has also been drawn to the counter affidavit filed by V.P. Yajurvedi, Director, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, in this Court on 9th August, 2002, annexing thereto the two letters, one dated 3rd October, 2000, and the other dated 28th August, 2001, sent by the Ministry to the Department of Labour with copy to Labour Commissioner. Our attention has also been drawn to the counter affidavit filed by V.P. Yajurvedi, Director, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, in this Court on 9th August, 2002, annexing thereto the two letters, one dated 3rd October, 2000, and the other dated 28th August, 2001, sent by the Ministry to the Department of Labour with copy to Labour Commissioner. Those letters note the complaints received to the effect that, in number of slaughter houses, children are employed in slaughtering operation of animals and other related trades. The letter points out that, under Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, employment of children is prohibited, inter alia, in abattoirs and slaughter houses, tanneries, etc. and the State Governments are the appropriate authorities to prosecute those who violate these provisions. The letter further states that necessary instructions be issued reiterating that all concerned authorities shall take necessary steps for preventing the engagement of child labour in the slaughter houses and related trades. About one year later, same request is made in the letter dated 28th August, 2001, and requiring that the action taken may be intimated to the Ministry. The Central Government is directed to file an affidavit dealing with this aspect as well and stating as to what steps have been taken in the last more than half a decade. 7. List the writ petition after five weeks. In I.A. No.4: 8. A copy of the additional affidavit filed on 8th July, 2006, be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day. 9. The prayer in the application is that slaughter house/abattoir run by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation at Tangra, Kolkata, be directed to be closed down till the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, are complied with. In the affidavit filed on 19th April, 2006 by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board, it is stated that there is only one organised slaughter house and meat processing unit in the State of West Bengal. On being asked as to how many slaughter houses are being run by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and what steps are being taken to effectively monitor, at least now, the compliance of the Act and the Rules, the learned counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board was unable to assist the court due to lack of particulars in the affidavit filed. If the State Government and/or Pollution Control Board fails to satisfy the court about the compliance or at least substantial compliance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, particularly in regard to complying with the minimum requirements of parameters and the standards and of up-keeping of the hygiene, this Court will be left with no option but to direct the closure of such slaughter houses which fail to comply with these minimum requirements. We permit the State Government and the West Bengal Pollution Control Board to file additional affidavit within three weeks. 10. List the interlocutory application after five weeks.