WP(C) 2546/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners as wel l as Mr. Handique, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioners, who are the poultry farmers, by the present petition ar e praying for the compensation at the rate of Rs.80/- per broiler (adult) culled due to the outbreak of the bird flue in the year 2008, contending inter alia th at though a large number of broiler (adult) was culled by the Govt. of Assam in the month of December, 2008, they have been paid the compensation at the rate of Rs.40/- per adult bird and on the other hand in respect of the poultry farmers in other districts including the district of Bongaigaon, such compensation was p aid at the rate of Rs.80/- per adult bird culled by the authority due to bird fl ue. The petitioners, therefore, pray for a direction to the respondents to pay t he difference of the rate of compensation i.e. Rs.40/- per adult bird. Mr. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners submits that thou gh initially the Govt. of Assam took a decision to pay the compensation at the r ate of Rs.40/- per adult bird, the same however was enhanced to Rs.80/- vide not ification dated 24.12.2008 and since such enhanced compensation has been paid to the farmers in other districts including Bongaigaon, the petitioners cannot be deprived from getting the benefit of such compensation in the enhanced rate. It has also been submitted by Mr. Choudhury that even if the subsequent enhanced ra te announced vide notification dated 24.12.2008 has subsequently been withdrawn, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of the notification dated 24.12.20 08, such benefit having been paid to the other farmers. Mr. Handique, learned State counsel with reference to the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed and also the Government notification dated 22.01.2009, copy of which has been produced during the course of argument and k ept on record, has submitted that for the reasons recorded in the said notificat ion, the earlier notification dated 24.12.2008 enhancing the amount of compensat ion payable has been withdrawn and as such the petitioners are not entitled to a ny compensation in terms of the aforesaid notification dated 24.12.2008, the sam e being not in force. It is not in dispute that certain adult birds belonging to the petitione rs were culled due to the outbreak of the bird flue in the month of December, 20 08 and accordingly the petitioners were paid the compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per adult bird on 11.12.2008 i.e. prior issuance of the notification dated 24.12.2008, whereby and whereunder the amount of compensation payable for cullin g of the bird has been enhanced from Rs.40/- to Rs.80/-. The said notification d ated 24.12.2008, however, has subsequently been withdrawn by the Govt. of Assam vide notification dated 22.01.2009 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to t he Govt. of Assam, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department for the reasons reco rded therein. Since the petitioners have been paid the compensation @Rs.40/- bef ore issuance of the notification dated 24.12.2008, which has subsequently been w ithdrawn and is not in force, the petitioners cannot claim that they should be p aid at the enhanced amount of compensation. Moreover, the notification dated 22. 01.2009 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam has not b een put to challenge. Mr. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel at this stage has submitted that the Government apart from paying the compensation to the affected farmers though als o took a decision for rehabilitation, but the petitioners have not been rehabili tated. The respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition, has contended that no dec ision in that regard has been taken so far. It is therefore open to the responde nt authorities to take any decision relating to the rehabilitation of the affect ed farmers and if such a decision is taken and the petitioners are entitled to t he benefit, the same has naturally to be extended to them. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and h ence the same is dismissed with the above observation.