GURUPADA CHANDA AND Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in" this Rule "are employees of the Haringhata Farm under the department of Animal Husbandry and veterinary Services, Animal Husbandry and Milk Branch, Government of West bengal. The petitioners were allotted quarters at the Haringhata Farm by the Government at a rent calculated in accordance with rules of the Government. The petitioners reside in the said quarters with their families and they have been rearing up and maintaining therein livestock, namely, cow; goat and buffalo, for domestic purposes for providing milk to their respective families only All on a. sudden a memorandum was issued which is to the following effect :-- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_24_TLCAL0_1979Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) THE petitioners contend that. the aforesaid memorandum was issued malafide arbitrarily and with colourable exercise of power taking away their fundamental rights enshrined in Article 19 (l)- (f) of the Constitution as it amounts to interference with their right to acquire and hold property. Further the order is ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as there is no legislative authority empowering the respondents to issue the said memorandum The memorandum in effect seeks to deprive the petitioners of their property without lawful authority and as such it is also violative of, article 31 (1) of the Constitution. , The petitioners should have been granted an opportunity to state their. case, before their fundamental right was sought to be interfered with. It is further stated that the word "livestock" is a vague word and it is not clear what the respondents specifically meant. by it. The memorandum also does not disclose "any reason or grounds and there was no public policy or purpose. behind the said memorandum

(3.) ON these allegations and contentions the petitioners moved the application under article 226 of the Constitution on October 24, 1974 whereon the present rule was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause why the declaration should not be made that the said memorandum is ultra vires article 14, 19 (1) (f) and 31 (1) of the ' Constitution and why a Writ in the nature of mandamus should not issue forbearing the respondents from taking; any steps or further steps in pursuance of the aforesaid memorandum. There was; an interim order, for maintenance of status quo which by subsequent orders; have been continuing till the disposal of the Rule. The respondents contested the Rule by filing affidavit in-oppsition affirmed by Hemendu Guha, director of Animal Husbandry, respondent No, 3. affirmed on the 2nd of july,1975 It was stated in the affidavit that while some of the petitioners were allotted residential quarters some other were forcibly occupying the quarters without permission of the authorities where they were remaining as unauthorised occupants. It is further stated in paragraph 7 of the said affidavit as follows : -