Disposed¶50

Varaha Livestock and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Mar 2026WP(C)/2830/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Varaha Livestock v. State of Assam; WP(C)/2830/2023; Gauhati High Court; piggery farm Nalbari; District Commissioner order dated 29.03.2023; complete evacuation of animals; natural justice; reasonable opportunity; mob violence vandalism 28.03.2023; respondent nos. 8 9 10; Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department standard procedures; nuisance; interim order 24.05.2025; admission stage disposal; jurisdiction of District Commissioner left open; conditions 2 3 4 continued.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to continue the piggery business subject to following the standard procedures without causing nuisance in the locality, and to continued compliance with condition nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the order dated 29.03.2023. ¶50

Varaha Livestock and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 of the District Commissioner, Nalbari — including the direction for complete evacuation of the animals — is sustainable, it having been passed without reasonable opportunity to the proprietor (violation of principles of natural justice). +1 more

¶46

Court's answer

The order dated 29.03.2023 was passed without giving any reasonable opportunity to the proprietor and was based on certain complaints; on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, the impugned action does not appear to be sustainable in law.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner be allowed to continue the piggery business by following the standard procedures for maintaining such a farm without causing any nuisance in the locality.

¶49

Key takeaways

The Court did not go into the question of the jurisdiction of the District Commissioner, Nalbari to issue the impugned order, leaving that aspect open.obiter¶46
Condition nos. 2, 3 and 4 contained in the order dated 29.03.2023 shall continue to be followed by the petitioner for running the business.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court — WP(C)/2830/2023, order dated 12.03.2026, Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi. Varaha Livestock, a partnership firm running a piggery farm at Village No. 1 Kaplabori, Nalbari, challenged an order dated 29.03.2023 of the District Commissioner, Nalbari, issued after a mob incident of 28.03.2023 allegedly led by private respondents (nos. 8–10), which directed, inter alia, complete evacuation of the animals. The Court held the impugned action unsustainable in law because it was passed without reasonable opportunity to the proprietor, i.e., in violation of the principles of natural justice, while expressly refraining from examining the jurisdiction of the District Commissioner. Taking into account the compliance already made with condition nos. 2, 3 and 4, the subsisting interim order of 24.05.2025 (extended from time to time), and the private respondents' statement that the farm is not presently operating and they have no existing grievance, the Court disposed of the petition at the admission stage: the petitioner may continue the business by meticulously following the Veterinary Department's standard procedures without causing nuisance in the locality, and condition nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the order dated 29.03.2023 shall continue to be followed.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010107862023

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2830/2023

¶6

VARAHA LIVESTOCK AND ANR

¶7

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 11, BHARATI KUTIR, ANUPAM PATH, RUKMINI GAON, GUWAHATI- 781022, DISTRICTKAMRUP(M), ASSAM AND REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER AND MANAGING DIRECTOR DR. PRANJAL DEKA (PETITIONER NO -2)

¶8

2: DR. PRANJAL DEKA

¶9

SON OF SRI KRISHNA KANTA DEKA RESIDENT OF ANUPAM PATH RUKMINI GAON GUWAHATI- 781022 DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, KAMRUP (M).

¶13

2:THE DIRECTOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT

¶14

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM CHENIKUTHI GUWAHATI- 781003 DIST- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM.

¶15

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶16

NALBARI.

¶17

Page No.# 2/5

¶18

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

¶19

NALBARI.

¶20

5:THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY OFFICER

¶21

NALBARI.

¶22

6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BARKHETRI REVENUE CIRCLE

¶23

NARAYANPUR MUKALMUA DIST- NABALRI..

¶24

7:THE OFFICER -IN- CHARGE MUKALMUA POLICE STATION

¶25

DIST- NALBARI.

¶26

8:DEBAJIT MEDHI SON OF BHABEN CH. MEDHI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NO-1 KAPLABORI P.S MUKALMUA DIST- NALBARI PIN - 781138

¶27

9:PANKAJ BARMAN SON OF RAMESH BARMAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NO-1 KAPLABORI P.S MUKALMUA DIST- NALBARI PIN - 781138

¶28

10:JITU BARMAN SON OF LATE ARABINDA BARMAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NO-1 KAPLABORI P.S MUKALMUA DIST- NALBARI PIN - 78113

¶29

Advocate for the Petitioner : M PATHAK, MR. P K DAS

¶30

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR A BARMAN,DR. P K GOSWAMI,SC, A.H and V. DEPT.

¶31

Page No.# 3/5

¶32

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶33

ORDER

¶34

12.03.2026

¶35

Heard Shri M. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S.S. Roy, learned State Counsel, Assam; Ms. M.M. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, A.H. & Veterinary Department and Dr. P.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 8, 9 and 10.

¶36

2. Considering the facts and circumstances and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition, which is pending since the year 2023, is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶37

3. The petitioner is a partnership firm established in the year 2018 whcih deals with breeding, rearing and selling of pigs. The piggery farm is situated at Village No. 1 Kaplabori in the Nalbari district and it is projected that it imports high quality breeding pigs from other States of the country. However, at the instigation of some miscreants of the village, false allegations were levelled against the petitioner on the issue of sewage with the further allegation that foul smell was emitted from the farm of the petitioner. Further on 28.03.2023, the respondent nos. 8, 9 and 10 had led a mob violence and vandalized the farm property. The same was, however, followed by the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 by the District Commissioner, Nalbari, whereby certain directions, including complete evacuation of the animals were issued.

¶38

4. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed.

¶39

5. Shri Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed, at the outset, that while issuing notice, vide order dated 24.05.2025, an interim order was passed and

¶40

Page No.# 4/5

¶41

based upon the same, the petitioner is running the business. He has also submitted that though the jurisdiction of the District Commissioner to issue such an order is questioned, the direction against Sl. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been duly complied with. It is submitted that the first direction for evacuating of the animals is absolutely unreasonable and will not amount to bringing any solution of the problem which was, in fact created by some miscreants.

¶42

6. Shri Roy, learned State Counsel has submitted that the impugned order appears to have been passed in the interest of public. He has, however, submitted that the first direction may not be construed to be a measure to bring any lasting solution of the aspect as the business, as such has not been declared illegal.

¶43

7. Ms. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, A.H. & Veterinary has submitted that there are standard procedures issued by the Veterinary Department and to run a piggery business, those procedures are required to be followed meticulously.

¶44

8. Dr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 8, 9 and 10 has submitted that as per instructions, the farm is not presently operating. Consequently, there is no existing grievance of the said respondents.

¶45

9. The rival submissions have been duly considered and materials on records carefully examined.

¶46

10. The order dated 29.03.2023 appears to have been passed without giving any reasonable opportunity to the proprietor and is based on certain complaints. On that aspect of violation of the principles of natural justice, the impugned action does not appear to be sustainable in law. Further, though the jurisdiction of the District Commissioner, Nalbari has been questioned without going into that aspect of the

¶47

Page No.# 5/5

¶48

matter, this Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as the condition nos. 2, 3, 4 are concerned, those have been fulfilled meticulously. This Court had also noted that there was an interim order passed in favour of the petitioner which has been extended from time to time. This Court has also taken into consideration the submission advanced on behalf of the respondent nos. 8, 9 and 10 that presently, they do not have any grievance.

¶49

11. Taking into account of the aforesaid factors and the factual backgrounds, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction that the petitioner be allowed to continue with the business, however, by following the standard procedures of maintaining of such piggery farm without causing any nuisance in the locality. This Court further directs that the condition nos. 2, 3 and 4, as contained in the order dated 29.03.2023 be continued to be followed by the petitioner for running the said business.

¶50

12. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in the manner indicated above.

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

Comparing Assistant

Varaha Livestock and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varaha Livestock and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prafulla Dutta Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sanjay Rajendra Jv Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Sri Pulin Borah Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Shahinur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

The Additional Director General of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence Dggi Vs Ms Sarvadeva Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Gautam Banerjee Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.