AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shampa Sarkar, J
None appears on behalf of the State respondents, no accommodation is prayed for.
In this writ petition an order dated December 29, 2017 of the District Magistrate, Murshidabad, has been assailed. It is the specific grievance of the petitioners that the order passed by the District Magistrate, which is impugned in this writ petition, has not been passed in terms of the order dated July 25, 2017.
The relevant portion of the order impugned is quoted below:
"It is revealed that the cattle smuggling through Indo-Bangladesh boarder under Raninagar PS was almost stopped during the period from 2010 to March, 2017 due to the closure of Godhapara cattle hat. Now, the cattle smuggling has been increased remarkably after the reopening of this cattle hat in April, 2017. Grassy and Hedgy Chars of the river Padma along the unfenced 15 km Indo-Bangladesh boarder under Raninagar PS is preferable to the smugglers for cattle smuggling depending on the easy availability of cattle in Gadhanpara cattle hat. This illegal business is being conducted by the different well organised Indo-Bangladesh smugglers syndicates. As a result, law and order of this area is being hampered frequently. On the other hand crops of thousands of acres of the farmers are being destroyed from illegal cattle trespass in the night. There is every possibility of infiltration of terrorists with deadly weapons at any time with the help of smuggler syndicates and thereby the safety and security of the people as well as of the nation may be gone under threat.
Therefore, after careful consideration of the above points the representation of the petitioners for renewal of licence for running Godhanpara cattle is hereby rejected and thus the order, dated 25-7-2017, passed by the Hon'ble Justice Samapti Chatterjee, Kolkata High Court is complied with."
The petitioners carry on business of cattle haat close to Raninagar - II Panchayat Samiti. Being aggrieved by cancellation of the petitioners' licence for running the cattle haat business, the petitioners filed W.P. 13299 (W) of 2017. By an order dated July 25, 2017, the writ petition was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court with the following order:
"Considering such submissions as advanced by the learned advocates for the parties and after perusing the records, I find it is evident from the record that since 1961 the petitioners have been carrying on the said business at that area. When sometime back the petitioners' licences were not renewed, then, the petitioners were compelled to approach before this Court. pursuant to the Court order hearing was held. On the hearing it was decided that the licences of the petitioners will be renewed after accepting licence fees for the year 2017-2018 along with all other statutory charges. Unfortunately, by the impugned resolution dated 21st April, 2017 without assigning any specific reason against the petitioners, the respondent authority cancelled such renewal of the petitioners' licences. I also find from the report of the State authority that petitioners' cattle hut is not falling within the purview of the notification dated 01-09-2003.
That being the scenario, in my considered view, the impugned order dated 28th April, 2017 issued by the Executive Officer, Raninagar-II, Panchayat Samiti cannot be sustained in the eye of law as well as the facts and circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28th April, 2018 is hereby set aside.
The petitioners are directed to make representation before the respondent no.2, the District Magistrate thereby agitating their grievances within 15 days from date. The respondent no. 2, concerned District Magistrate after receiving such representation from the petitioners shall take a decision in accordance with law within six weeks to that extent whether the licences already renewed on 24th March, 2017 shall be continued or not after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their authorized representative and thereafter within one week communicate the decision to the petitioners.
Needless to mention that the respondent no.2, the District Magistrate at the time of taking such decision as indicated above will be at liberty to take assistance of the Government Surveyor/Amin to measure whether the petitioners' cattle hut is falling within the zone as prescribed under notification dated 01-09-2003 or not.
It is also made clear that till such decision is taken by the respondent no.2, the District Magistrate, Murshidabad herein, the petitioners are at liberty to carry on their cattle hut on the basis of the renewal of the licences dated 24th March, 2017.
With these directions the writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs."
It appears that Her Ladyship in the order dated July 25, 2017 had clearly indicated that the Government order had prescribed the forbidden distance to be 8 km from the Indo-Bangladesh border. The District Magistrate was also directed to measure out the place of business of the petitioners from the border and then pass a reasoned order as to whether the petitioners' place of business was situated in an area within such forbidden distance as per the Government order operating in the field.
The order impugned states that Godhanpara cattle haat was closed due to the cattle smuggling through the Indo-Bangladesh boarder. The authority held that as the cattle smuggling was rampant along the river Padma specially over the unfenced 15 km along the border area and there was possibility of infiltration of terrorists with deadly weapons, the representation of the petitioner for renewal of licence could not be allowed.
The order, in my view, does not clarify as to whether the petitioners were entitled to renewal of licence under the Government order operating in the field.
The reasons assigned seem to be extraneous. This Court had directed the District Magistrate, Murshidabad to give a specific finding as to the eligibility of the petitioners to continue with the cattle haat business in Godhanpara cattle haat. If it is the case of the respondents that as a policy decision Godhanpara cattle haat had been completely closed down and no business transaction was permissible then reasons to that effect ought to have been assigned in the impugned order.
As the impugned order suffers from the above infirmities the same is set aside and quashed. The District Magistrate, Murshidabad is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the decisions of this Court dated July 25, 2017, passed in W.P. 13299 (W) of 2017.
This Court has not gone into the merits of the claims of the petitioners but has thought it necessary to pass this order as the order impugned suffers from certain infirmities and misinterpretation of the order of this Court.
The District Magistrate, Murshidabad will reconsider the matter on its own merits and pass a reasoned order within 6 (six) weeks from date of communication of this order. The order so passed should also be communicated to the petitioners.
The petitioners will be called on a particular date to be fixed by the District Magistrate, Murshidabad for a hearing and for measurements etc. If there is a policy decision to shut down the haat then the order to be passed should reflect the same. In the order to be passed, it should also be clarified whether other persons were allowed to function from the same haat or haats within the 15 km areas from the Indo-Bangladesh boarder.
This writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties as expeditiously as possible.