Prafulla Boro vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4680 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010242932022




                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                           Case No. : WP(C)/7636/2022

         PRAFULLA BORO
         S/O- DAREN BORO, VILL- AGCHIA, P.S. BARMA, P.O. DALBARI, DIST.-
         BAKSA, PIN- 781333



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
         REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF PANCHAYAT AND
         RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DISPUR, GHY-06

         2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
          B.T.C.
          KOKRAJHAR
          PIN- 781078

         3:THE SECRETARY
          MARKET AND FAIRS DEPTT.
          KOKRAJHAR

         4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
          DIST.- BAKSA
          PIN- 781333

         5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
          BAKSA
          PIN- 781333

         6:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE
          BARMA P.S.
          DIST.- BAKSA
          PIN- 781333
                                                                               Page No.# 2/3

           7:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
           TIHU-BARMA DEV. BLOCK
            BARMA
            DIST.- BAKSA
            PIN- 78133

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D.


                                  BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
                                  ORDER

28.11.2022 Heard Shri A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri NK Dev Nath, learned Standing Counsel, P & RD Department for the respondent no. 1; Ms. RB Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 7 and Ms. M. Barman, learned State Counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 6.

2. Considering the subject matter and as agreed to by the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself.

3. The petitioner being one of the aspirants for settlement of Bari Makha Cattle Market had submitted his bid. The bid of the petitioner was found to be highest valid bid at an amount of Rs.2,31,000/- and the aforesaid market was accordingly settled with the petitioner on 26.07.2022. The petitioner had accordingly deposited the necessary fees and documents and started operation. However, the grievance of the petitioner has arisen from a notice dated 07.11.2022 issued by the Officer-in-charge of Barbari Police Station, Baksa whereby the market is sought to be banned as per amendment of the Assam Cattle Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2021. The validity of the notice is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

4. The parties are in agreement that the issue involved in this writ petition was the issue which has earlier been dealt with by this Court in the case of Nazrul Islam Vs. State of Assam and Ors., vide order dated 03.11.2022 passed in Page No.# 3/3

WP(C)/6724/2022. In the said case, a similar notice was issued by the Baghbor Police Station was the subject matter of challenge.

5. This Court after discussion of the relevant laws governing the field had passed the following direction-

"15. Accordingly, by taking note of the grievance raised in this writ petition, we restrain the Officer-in-Charge of Baghbor Police Station or any other authority from interfering with the operation of the cattle market of the petitioner inasmuch as, it is a legitimately settled Animal Market which is also recognized under the Act of 2021 as well as Amendment Act of 2021. But at the same time, giving liberty to any authority under the law if they have reasons to exercise their powers of regulating transportation of the cattle, even though such transportation is made to the Animal Market of the petitioner, if the transportation in contravention with any of the provisions of the Act of 2021 or the Amendment Act of 2021. We further provide that in the event any investigating authority under any law is required to conduct such investigation within the premises of the Animal Market of the petitioner, such investigating authority should be allowed to enter the Animal Market for the purpose of the investigation, but such enablement should not be construed to also authorize such investigating authority to arbitrarily interfere with the functioning of the Animal Market without following any due procedure of law."

6. In view of the above and by following the directions contained in paragraph 15 of the judgment mentioned above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the same direction with suitable modification i.e. instead of "Officer-in-Charge of Baghbor Police Station" it should be read as "Officer-in-Charge, Barbari Police Station, Baksa."

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant