Serial No. 01
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Regular List
AT SHILLONG
PIL No. 3 of 2024
Date of order: 31.05.2024
1. Shri. John F. Rymbai
2. Shri. Monush Lapang
3. Shri Simon Lapang
- Versus -
1. State of Meghalaya,
through the Director Department of Animal Husbandry and
Veterinary, Meghalaya.
2. Union of India,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
through the Secretary, Law-U-Sib, Lumbatngen, Near, MTC
Workshop, Sawlad, Madanrting, Shillong, Meghalaya 793021
3. Union Ministry of Animal Husbandry,
Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi 110001
Coram:
S. Vaidyanathan, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : Ms. O.A.I. Bang, Adv.
Ms. Z.S.L. Synrem, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. K. Khan, AAG with
Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl.Sr.GA
Mr. E.R. Chyne, GA
i) Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
1 4
Page of
O R D E R
( )
Made by Hon’ble, the Chief Justice
The petitioners have come forward with the following prayers:
(a) Prevent the State of Meghalaya from relocating or
“
establishing animal markets at places like Shangbangla and
Umsning Village or any other place not conducive for the
location of a livestock market.
(b) To make clear direction on the guideline and orders of
establishing a livestock market to prevent cruelty against
animals.
(c) Pass any order to uphold the ends of justice.
”
2. The main ground of attack in the present Public Interest
Litigation is that though the distance of 25 km for livestock markets
from any international border is specified in the old enactment Rules of
2017 but the Rules of 2018 published in the Gazette of India dated
22.03.2018 are the draft Rules in which objections/suggestions have
been called for.
3. According to the petitioners, in the draft Rules, more so, Rule
8 deals with animal markets near international borders and no other
provisions has been made with regard to maintenance of distance.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would further contended that in
terms of the Meghalaya State Agricultural Produce and Livestock
Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 published in the
Gazette of Meghalaya, Part-IV dated 01.06.2020, Rule 3 deals with the
establishment of markets, more so, with regard to the intention of
2 4
Page of
regulating marketing of such agricultural produce and livestock in the
State for which a notification has to be issued. For reference, Rule 3 is
produced herein below:
“3. (1) The State Government may, by notification in the official
gazette, declare its intention of regulating the marketing of such
agricultural produce and livestock, in the State, as may be
specified in the notification. The notification may be sought to
notice of the interested public by publishing in local language
and English n widely circulated platforms, media like
newspapers, websites and other formats:
Provided that no area within the limits of municipality shall be
included for regulation under this Act except after consultation
with the municipal Board or municipal council, as the case may
be.
(2) The notification under sub-section (1) shall state that any
objections or suggestions which may be received by the State
Government within such period considered by the State
Government.
(3) State Government may hold consultations with Local bodies,
and autonomous district councils, who own and operate rural
periodical markets or haats or any other such markets for
marketing of agricultural produce and livestock within their
jurisdictional area, to bring such markets under the regulation of
this Act, so as to develop these markets to efficiently function as
marketing platform nearest to the farm gate.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that even
though the Act has come into force, as on date, no notification has been
issued. The petitioners in their prayers has specifically sought that there
should be prevention from relocating or establishing animal markets at
places like Shangbangla and Umsning Village or any other place not
conducive for the location of a livestock market.
3 4
Page of
4. Mr. K. Khan, learned AAG submitted that another petitioner
has approached this Court by way of PIL No. 7 of 2023 with regard to
shifting of the livestock markets in terms of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2017
and a distance of 25 km from any international border to be maintained.
As the draft Rules have not come into force and that there is no time
limit prescribed in terms of Rule 3, which is extracted supra, we are not
inclined to grant the relief as such, as prayed for by the petitioners.
5. This Court has expressed its view that it is open to the
petitioners to get impleaded as interveners in PIL No. 7 of 2023 which
is pending before this Court in order to put forth their case. Though
learned counsel vehemently addressed her arguments, when this Court
expressed that the relief cannot be granted in the present petition, she
sought permission to get the petitioners impleaded in PIL No. 7 of 2023.
6. Taking note of the submissions made, the present PIL is
disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners for impleading
themselves in the pending matter being PIL No. 7 of 2023.
(W. Diengdoh) (S. Vaidyanathan)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
31.05.2024
“Sylvana PS”
4 4
Page of