Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 636 (GAU)

Lal Singh and Ors. v. State of Nagaland and Ors.

2012-05-29

S.R.SEN

body2012
1. The instant writ petition is directed a gainst the impougned notification dated 23.9.2011 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of A.H. and Veterinary. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner challenged the validity and legality of the notification dated 23.9.2011, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of A.H. and Veterinary, Nagaland Kohima on the ground that the said notification has been issued in most arbitrary and discriminatory manner. The notification dated 23.9.2011 have revised the Token fee at the check post for livestock and poultry. Whereas the Token fee for other livestock and poultry has been enhanced by a maximum of 100%, the token fee in respect of pigs has been revised from Rs.30-00 to Rs.90-00 each is an increase of 200%. Moreover there is no stations at the check post established by the respondents as such revising or enhancing the token fees does not arise. Being aggrieved by the said notification, the petitioner moved the writ petition before this court. Today the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the notification which is on record and after that the matter came up for hearing. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. T.B. Jamir who submitted that the fee enhanced or revised is arbitrary one because at one time the Government has increased the fee 100% and in the Case of pigs 200%. As a result, petitioners are facing difficulties to pay the enhanced fee which is some time beyond their control. The learned counsel also challenged the entire notification and submitted that Government cannot issue the notification under section 6 or 24(ii)(h) of the Nagaland Livestock and Poultry Contagious Disease Act, 1980 just to enhance their revenue and draw my attention to the counter affidavit filed by the Government respondents at para 6 where respondents admitted that they have, increased the fee to enhanced h the Government revenue. The learned counsel argued that the said Act does not empower the Government to enhance the fee to generate, the revenue. So, the impugned notification dated 23.9.2011 may be quashed. On the other hand, the learned State counsel Ms. The learned counsel argued that the said Act does not empower the Government to enhance the fee to generate, the revenue. So, the impugned notification dated 23.9.2011 may be quashed. On the other hand, the learned State counsel Ms. S. Mere has submitted that whatever the token fee is collected it goes to the Government revenue and as Government is facing financial constrain, Government is compelled to enhance the fees under the said Act as such, there is nothing wrong in the notification so, writ petition may not be allowed and need to be dismissed. I have perused sections 6 and 24 of the Nagaland Livestock and Poultry Contagious Disease Act, 1980 and understood that section 6 and 24 has empowered the Government to determine the fee for vaccination and marking of the cattle. The notification dated 23.9.2011 speaks as under : "In exercise of the Power conferred under sections 6 and 24(ii)(h) of the Nagaland Poultry Contagious Disease Act, 1980, the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to revise the prescribed Fees on Livestock and Poultry, Poultry products and Token fees in respect of detention of Animal in Quarantine Stations or Check Posts for vaccination and marking of animals received at the Quarantine Stations and Check Posts in the State of Nagaland as per Annexure A, B, C and E enclosed. The Quarantine Stations/Check Posts jurisdiction, viz., Rengmapani, Khuzama, Tuli, Tsutapela, lakhuni, Pangsha, Merapani, Namsa, nagihimora, Zhamai, Khekhakeno, New Oolaghat Road, Old Golaghat Road, Railway Market and Dilai Gate. The Officer-in-charge of the Quarantine Stations and Check Posts under their respective jurisdictions must strictly enforce the Nagaland Livestock and Poultry Contagious Disease, Act, 1980 with effect from 17.9.2011. This superseded the earlier Notification No. AHV/PLAN/AP and ATA 2004-05 dated 17th July, 2009." On bare perusal of the notification above I did not find that Government has specifically issued the notification with intention to generate or enhance the revenue as the word enhance on revenue is not found mentioned in the said notification. Therefore, I am unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. T.B. Jamir. Therefore, I am unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. T.B. Jamir. Now, further though respondents have admitted in the affidavit-in-opposition at para 6 that the rate has been increased with intention to enhance the State revenue even if one take it for consideration that Government has enhanced the rate of vaccination and marking of their cattle with intention to generate revenue, I do not find there is any wrong on it. The Government needs fund and revenue to run the whole Government mechanism and there is no dual opinion on that. Now question remain before me is whether 200% and 300% increase of enhance of the fee for vaccination and marking is justifiable or not. In my opinion at a time to increase the fee up to 200% or 300% is not justified and reasonable. However, since it is a Government policy, I am not giving any direction. But ask the Government to re-consider the fee structure in respect of pigs which should be reasonable so can. be paid by the common people without any constrain. With this observation, the writ petition is allowed to that extent at this admission stage and disposed of. _____________