Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 293 (GAU)

Kaushik Das v. Commissioner

2017-03-07

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : A.M. Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Y. Doloi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam appearing for the State respondents. 2. The petitioners claiming themselves to be local public of Katigorah locality, had participated in a meeting held for not to shift the Katigorah (Chowrangee) Cattle Market to Sealtek because of the fact that Katigorah is situated within the two Anchalik Panchayat area and the place is very suitable for communication and for running the affairs of the market, including in the rainy season. It is submitted by the petitioners that the respondent authorities had issued the letter dated 18.06.2016 for shifting of the said cattle market on an ill conceived inputs that it has been done as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that no cattle market shall remain within 20 kilometers of the India-Bangladesh border. 3. On a reading of the letter dated 18.06.2016 of the Chief Executive Officer, Cachar Zila Parishad addressed to the Executive Officer of the Katigorah Anchalik Panchayat, it can be seen that the reasons stated for shifting of the cattle market is that as per the minutes of the 3rd meeting of the Committee constituted pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 05.11.2015 in WP(C) No.562/2012 held on 24.02.2016, there is a decision regarding shifting of the cattle market from the present location, which is 20 kilometers within the International border. 4. On a bare perusal of the impugned letter dated 18.06.2016, it is noticed that the decision to shift the cattle market from within 20 kilometers of the International border had been based pursuant to the minutes of the 3rd meeting of the Committee constituted pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 05.11.2015 passed in WP(C) No.562/2012 and it is not that the shifting had been done pursuant to any such order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the core contention of the petitioners that the order of shifting dated 18.06.2016 had been based on an ill conceived inputs that it is as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is found to be factually incorrect. 5. The State respondents in their affidavit in opposition, in paragraph-3 had stated as under:- "On the basis of that the said Mr. 5. The State respondents in their affidavit in opposition, in paragraph-3 had stated as under:- "On the basis of that the said Mr. Hazarika submitted a detailed report before the Hon'ble Court where it was clearly stated that about Cattle smuggling which has linked with the Indian Currency Note. Further, it was clearly indicated that the Cattle Haats should be beyond 20 Kms. from International Border to discourage Cattle Smuggling. After getting the report submitted by Sri Upamanyu Hazarika, the Hon'ble Court directed the authority concerned to take appropriate steps and accordingly the Central Government conducted a meeting where the State was represented by its Chief Secretary and also in the meeting the Chief Secretary placed in the meeting noted that in Cachar District, one Cattle Haat located within 10 Kms in the International Border. The Deputy Commissioner, Cachar has taken up the matter with CEO, Zila Panchayat, Cachar for shifting the Cattle Haat. In Karimganj district there is no Cattle Haat within 20 Kms of the International Border. In Dhubri District six Haats are located between 0-20 Kms of the International Border. Threfore, Government has taken a policy decision to shift the Cattle Haat in question in connection with the writ petition should have been shifted to Sealtak from Katigorah (Chowrangee). The shifting of the Cattle Haat is a purely policy decision of the Government." 6. The said averments made by the State respondents in their affidavit in opposition appears to be in conformity with what has been stated in the Annexure-2 minutes of the 3rd meeting of the Committee. In the minutes, it has been clearly stated that it is the 3rd meeting of the Committee constituted pursuant to the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 05.11.2015. On a perusal of the order dated 05.11.2015 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP(C) No.562/2012, it is seen that in the said order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had deliberated upon the supplementary report dated 04.11.2015 submitted by Sri Upamanyu Hazarika, learned senior Advocate, who was appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as its Commissioner. 7. On a perusal of the supplementary report dated 04.11.2015, it can be seen that in paragraph-2 of the report pertains to the issue that cattle smuggling is linked to smuggling of Fake Indian Currency Notes. 7. On a perusal of the supplementary report dated 04.11.2015, it can be seen that in paragraph-2 of the report pertains to the issue that cattle smuggling is linked to smuggling of Fake Indian Currency Notes. In the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 05.11.2015, it had been provided that the Supreme Court required the constitution of a Committee consisting of the Chief Secretary of the State of Assam and the Secretary, Border Management, Ministry of Home, Government of India, with further provisions that it is expected that these two high ranking officers would do the needful by chalking out an action plan with estimated time limit of performance dealing with each of the subject matters mentioned in the Supplementary Report. Inasmuch as, the subject of cattle smuggling is mentioned in the supplementary report, therefore, it is inferred that the aforesaid Committee is also required to take into consideration the aspect of cattle smuggling being linked to Fake Indian Currency Notes. 8. On a perusal of the minutes of the 3rd meeting of the Committee, which is annexed as Annexure-2 of the writ petition, it can be seen that the said Committee is the Committee that is constituted as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 05.11.2015 in WP(C) No.562/2012. The said Committee, in paragraph-6 of the minutes of the 3rd meeting had provided that the existence of the cattle markets ought not to be located within a distance of 20 kilometers from the International Boarder. 9. In such view of the matter, the decision not to allow any cattle market to operate within the 20 kilometers of International Border is a policy decision by an appropriate High Level Committee constituted as per the requirement of the order dated 05.11.2015 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP(C) No.562/2012. The said decision being a policy decision, the petitioners in this writ petition could not point anything to substantiate that such a policy decision is arbitrary or unreasonable. The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the present location of the cattle market is at a convenient location for the local people. 10. The said decision being a policy decision, the petitioners in this writ petition could not point anything to substantiate that such a policy decision is arbitrary or unreasonable. The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the present location of the cattle market is at a convenient location for the local people. 10. But considering the background, in which the aforesaid policy decision was taken, meaning thereby that it is based upon an enquiry report, which is submitted and accepted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by following the procedure of constituting a Committee as required by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 05.11.2015, such a policy decision cannot be termed to be arbitrary. 11. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, a policy decision can be interfered only upon a consideration that the same is arbitrary or in violation of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. 12. In such view of the matter, as no arbitrariness can be pointed out as regards the policy decision of the Committee constituted as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no infirmity can be found in the letter dated 18.06.2016, which admittedly has been made pursuant to the said policy decision contained in the minutes of the 3rd meeting of the aforesaid Committee. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.