[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 9 Ors on 12 March, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010107862023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2830/2023
VARAHA LIVESTOCK AND ANR
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 11, BHARATI
KUTIR, ANUPAM PATH, RUKMINI GAON, GUWAHATI- 781022, DISTRICT-
KAMRUP(M), ASSAM AND REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR DR. PRANJAL DEKA (PETITIONER NO -2)
2: DR. PRANJAL DEKA
SON OF SRI KRISHNA KANTA DEKA
RESIDENT OF ANUPAM PATH
RUKMINI GAON
GUWAHATI- 781022
DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, KAMRUP (M).
2:THE DIRECTOR
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
CHENIKUTHI
GUWAHATI- 781003
DIST- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM.
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
NALBARI.
Page No.# 2/5
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
NALBARI.
5:THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY OFFICER
NALBARI.
6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
BARKHETRI REVENUE CIRCLE
NARAYANPUR
MUKALMUA DIST- NABALRI..
7:THE OFFICER -IN- CHARGE
MUKALMUA POLICE STATION
DIST- NALBARI.
8:DEBAJIT MEDHI
SON OF BHABEN CH. MEDHI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NO-1 KAPLABORI
P.S MUKALMUA
DIST- NALBARI
PIN - 781138
9:PANKAJ BARMAN
SON OF RAMESH BARMAN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NO-1 KAPLABORI
P.S MUKALMUA
DIST- NALBARI
PIN - 781138
10:JITU BARMAN
SON OF LATE ARABINDA BARMAN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NO-1 KAPLABORI
P.S MUKALMUA
DIST- NALBARI
PIN - 78113
Advocate for the Petitioner : M PATHAK, MR. P K DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR A BARMAN,DR. P K GOSWAMI,SC, A.H and V.
DEPT.
Page No.# 3/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
12.03.2026
Heard Shri M. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S.S. Roy,
learned State Counsel, Assam; Ms. M.M. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, A.H. &
Veterinary Department and Dr. P.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent nos.
8, 9 and 10.
2. Considering the facts and circumstances and as agreed to by the learned counsel
for the parties, the instant writ petition, which is pending since the year 2023, is taken
up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The petitioner is a partnership firm established in the year 2018 whcih deals with
breeding, rearing and selling of pigs. The piggery farm is situated at Village No. 1
Kaplabori in the Nalbari district and it is projected that it imports high quality breeding
pigs from other States of the country. However, at the instigation of some miscreants
of the village, false allegations were levelled against the petitioner on the issue of
sewage with the further allegation that foul smell was emitted from the farm of the
petitioner. Further on 28.03.2023, the respondent nos. 8, 9 and 10 had led a mob
violence and vandalized the farm property. The same was, however, followed by the
impugned order dated 29.03.2023 by the District Commissioner, Nalbari, whereby
certain directions, including complete evacuation of the animals were issued.
4. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed.
5. Shri Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed, at the outset, that
while issuing notice, vide order dated 24.05.2025, an interim order was passed and
Page No.# 4/5
based upon the same, the petitioner is running the business. He has also submitted
that though the jurisdiction of the District Commissioner to issue such an order is
questioned, the direction against Sl. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been duly complied with. It
is submitted that the first direction for evacuating of the animals is absolutely
unreasonable and will not amount to bringing any solution of the problem which was,
in fact created by some miscreants.
6. Shri Roy, learned State Counsel has submitted that the impugned order appears
to have been passed in the interest of public. He has, however, submitted that the first
direction may not be construed to be a measure to bring any lasting solution of the
aspect as the business, as such has not been declared illegal.
7. Ms. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, A.H. & Veterinary has submitted that
there are standard procedures issued by the Veterinary Department and to run a
piggery business, those procedures are required to be followed meticulously.
8. Dr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 8, 9 and 10 has
submitted that as per instructions, the farm is not presently operating. Consequently,
there is no existing grievance of the said respondents.
9. The rival submissions have been duly considered and materials on records
carefully examined.
10. The order dated 29.03.2023 appears to have been passed without giving any
reasonable opportunity to the proprietor and is based on certain complaints. On that
aspect of violation of the principles of natural justice, the impugned action does not
appear to be sustainable in law. Further, though the jurisdiction of the District
Commissioner, Nalbari has been questioned without going into that aspect of the
Page No.# 5/5
matter, this Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that so far as the condition nos. 2, 3, 4 are concerned, those have been
fulfilled meticulously. This Court had also noted that there was an interim order passed
in favour of the petitioner which has been extended from time to time. This Court has
also taken into consideration the submission advanced on behalf of the respondent
nos. 8, 9 and 10 that presently, they do not have any grievance.
11. Taking into account of the aforesaid factors and the factual backgrounds, this
Court is of the opinion that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction that the
petitioner be allowed to continue with the business, however, by following the
standard procedures of maintaining of such piggery farm without causing any
nuisance in the locality. This Court further directs that the condition nos. 2, 3 and 4, as
contained in the order dated 29.03.2023 be continued to be followed by the petitioner
for running the said business.
12. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in the manner indicated above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
