Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 659 (GAU)

State of Nagaland v. Industrial Village

2011-08-05

A.K.GOSWAMI, MADAN B.LOKUR

body2011
JUDGMENT A.K. Goswami, J. 1. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 01-09-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 117(K) of 2010. 2. We have heard Ms. Lucy Nsu, learned Government Advocate for the Appellants as well as also heard Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned Counsel for the Respondent. 3. In the writ petition grievance expressed by the writ Petitioner was that although for the on going Census operation in Dimapur for the Petitioner's Village, enumerators were appointed by the Extra Assistant Commissioner (GEN), Charge Officer (Census), Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, for collecting data, in some areas of the Petitioner's Village, census operation was carried out by the staff of Dimapur Municipal Council, Dimapur. It was the case of the Petitioner that staff of Dimapur Municipal Council, Dimapur, is not the official enumerators for the Industrial Village, Razuphe, i.e. writ Petitioner and, therefore, they have No. right whatsoever to carry out census operation pertaining to the Petitioner's Village and that it is only the official enumerators who are appointed by the competent authority who have the right to undertake census operation. 4. Taking note of the fact that the Charge Officer (Census) has specifically appointed enumerators for the Petitioner's Village and that census operation conducted by the staff of the Dimapur Municipal Council would be contrary to the direction of the Charge Officer (Census), the learned Single Judge had directed Respondent No. 3, Extra Assistant Commissioner (GEN), Charge Officer (Census), Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland, to cancel the census records collected by the Dimapur Municipal Council, Dimapur with a further direction to conduct census operation in the Petitioner's Village through the official enumerators appointed by him. 5. The State has preferred this appeal making a grievance that the writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission hearing without affording any opportunity to the State Respondents to file affidavit and, accordingly, pray for setting aside the order dated 01-09-2010 passed in W.P. (C) No. 117(K) of 2010. 6. Mrs. Lucy Nsu submits that only four enumerators were appointed by the competent authority to undertake census operation in the Industrial Village, Razhuphe and No. census operation was undertaken by the Staff of Dimapur Municipal Council, Dimapur. 6. Mrs. Lucy Nsu submits that only four enumerators were appointed by the competent authority to undertake census operation in the Industrial Village, Razhuphe and No. census operation was undertaken by the Staff of Dimapur Municipal Council, Dimapur. Since No. census operation was undertaken within the jurisdiction of the Petitioner's Village, there was No. question of any double entry in the National Population Register as apprehended by the writ Petitioner. 7. It would appear that from the perusal of the order dated 01-09-2010 of the learned Single Judge that the learned Judge had disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties and, therefore, the contention advanced by the State that they were not granted any opportunity to file affidavit-in-opposition cannot be countenanced. 8. Be that as it may, from the memo of the appeal, it would appear that the stand of the Appellants is that the Dimapur Municipal Council had not undertaken any census operation and the four enumerators appointed by the competent authority had only undertaken census operation in the Petitioner's Village. In fact, the State is only supporting the contention advanced by the writ Petitioner. 9. Thus, on the merit of the decision of the learned Single Judge, the State cannot have any grievance. Though it is now submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that there was No. census operation undertaken by the Staff of Dimapur Municipal Council, Dimapur, the same has No. bearing in the ultimate decision arrived at by the learned Single Judge. The order of the learned Single Judge only provided further safeguard to the effect that in the event any enumeration was done in respect of the Petitioner's Village by the staff of the Dimapur Municipal Council, Dimapur, the same shall be cancelled. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not impressed by the argument of the learned Counsel of the Appellants. We find No. merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. 11. No. costs. Appeal Dismissed.