Judgment :- The petitioner is an importer of fish meal and it is challenging Ext.P-4 public notice dated 9-7-2001 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Ext.P-5 notification dated 17-10-2001 issued by the Central Government and Ext.P-6 public notice dated 21-1-2002 issued by the Commissioner of Customs. The brief facts of the case, are the following: 2. The import of livestock to India, is governed by the provisions of Livestock Importation Act, 1898. Section 2 (a) of the Act defines the expression 'infectious or contagious disorders’ as including tick-pest, anthrax, glanders, farcy, scabies and any other disease or disorder,’ which may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. Section 2(b) defines livestock as "livestock includes horses, kine, camels, sheep and any other animal which may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette". The Parliament has amended the Livestock Importation Act of 1898 by Livestock Importation (Amendment) Act 2001. The definition ‘livestock products’ has been incorporated in Section 2 of the Act as Section 2(d). The said definition reads as follows: "Livestock products includes meat and meat products of all kinds including fresh, chilled and frozen meat, tissue, organs of poultry, pig', sheep, goat, egg and egg powder, milk and milk products' bovine, ovine and caprine, embryos, ova, semen; pet food products of animal origin and any other animal product which may be specified by the Central Government by the notification in the Official Gazette." A new Section, Section 3A has been added to the Act, enabling the Central Government to regulate, restrict or prohibit import of any livestock product into the territories of India, which may be affected by any infectious or contagious disorders. In exercise of the power under Section 3A, Ext.P-4 notification has been issued by the Commissioner of Customs, restricting the import to India livestock products, including pet food products of animals. In exercise of the power under Section 2(d) read with Section 3A, the Union of India notified that the livestock products shall cover products, eggs and seeds of all aquatic animals, including fish, crustaceans and molluses and import of them have been made, subject to the issuance of Sanitary Import Permit. In exercise of the power under Section 2(d) read with Section 3A, the Union of India notified that the livestock products shall cover products, eggs and seeds of all aquatic animals, including fish, crustaceans and molluses and import of them have been made, subject to the issuance of Sanitary Import Permit. By Ext.P-6 notification, the Commissioner of Customs informed all importers and Custom House Agents that import of aquatic products, like fish meal, can be made only with a Sanitary Import Permit from the competent authority and subject to clearance by the Animal Quarantine Officer, Chennai. 3. The petitioner, who. is an importer offish meal, in view of the above notifications, is bound to obtain Sanitary Import Permit and clearance from the Animal Quarantine Officer, Chennai, to import fish meal. Therefore, it is constrained to challenge Exts.P-4 to P-6. According to the petitioner, the inclusion of fish or fish products in the livestock products, is clearly unauthorized by the provisions of the Livestock Importation Act, 1898. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the statement of objects and reasons for the introduction of the enactment. Reliance is also placed on the Preamble of the Act, to show that it was enacted to govern the cargo of horses and similar domestic animals. Though Section 2(d) defines live­ stock as including pet food products of animal origin and any other animal product, which may be specified by the Central Government, it cannot be taken that the said provision will enable the Government to notify as livestock products, something totally unrelated to livestock. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Maheswari Fish Seed Farm v. Tamilnadu Electricity Board (2004) 2 RC 791,to contend that livestock will not include fish. The relevant portion of the said Judgment reads as follows: "It is true that some of the dictionaries include rearing livestock within the meaning of agriculture. Livestock means domestic animals especially horses, cattle, sheep and pigs (see Chambers Twentieth Centuary Dictionary, page 737). Historically, these animals are associated with agriculture as they either help in carrying out agricultural operations or they are domestically maintained in agricultural fields because they can feed on products or by-products of agriculture in its now sense. Livestock means domestic animals especially horses, cattle, sheep and pigs (see Chambers Twentieth Centuary Dictionary, page 737). Historically, these animals are associated with agriculture as they either help in carrying out agricultural operations or they are domestically maintained in agricultural fields because they can feed on products or by-products of agriculture in its now sense. Fishes are not domestic animals and are not included within the meaning of the term 'live-stock'." In the light of the above quoted Judgment, it is submitted that fish can never be treated as livestock. Therefore, it is submitted that the inclusion of fish meal in the definition of livestock products and the consequential notifications, requiring the petitioner to get Sanitary Import Permit are all ultra vires and unauthorized by the provisions of the Act. Therefore, they are to be declared void and unsustainable, it is contended. 4. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit supporting the impugned notifications. The dictionary meaning of 'animal' is any living thing, other than a human being, that can feel and move, eg. a lion, bird, snake, fish or fly. Therefore, fish is also an animal. It is called an aquatic animal. Section 2(d) treats any pet food product of animal origin as livestock product and it enables the Union of India to notify any other animal product as livestock product. The above amendment to the Act is not under challenge. Therefore, the Government is competent to notify any other animal product also as livestock product even though in the ordinary sense, the same may not have any connection, whatsoever, with the livestock. In other words, the Legislature empowered the Government to include non livestock products in the ordinary sense also among the livestock products for the purpose of this particular statute. In exercise of that power, the impugned orders Exts.P-4 and P-5 have been issued. So, I feel that those notifications are intra vires. The Preamble of the Actor the objects for bringing in the legislation about a century back, cannot now be pressed into service to defeat the express provisions of the Act. Only if there is any ambiguity, reliance can be placed on such aides for interpretation. But the Parliament has willed that any other animal product can also be treated as livestock provided the Government issue a notification and this Court is bound to respect the will of the Legislature. Only if there is any ambiguity, reliance can be placed on such aides for interpretation. But the Parliament has willed that any other animal product can also be treated as livestock provided the Government issue a notification and this Court is bound to respect the will of the Legislature. If Exts.P-4 and P-5 are valid, there is nothing wrong with Ext.P-6 also. Fish meal is a product generated from the aquatic animal, fish. So, the technical contention urged by the petitioner cannot be accepted in this case. The decision of the Apex Court in Maheshwari Fish Seed Farm's case (supra) was concerning the concessions to farmers in the matter of electricity tariff, who are engaged in agriculture. The Apex Court has held that raising of livestock will form part of agriculture. But fish farming may not amount to raising of livestock. Therefore, it was held that fish farmers are not entitled to get the confessional tariff available to agriculturists. The interpretation given by the Apex Court in the decision of Maheshwari Fish Seed Farm's case that fish is not livestock, can have no application to the facts of this case. In view of the above position, the Original Petition fails and it is dismissed.