Nayantara Biswas vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 408 Gua

                                                                      Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010184812020




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

                           Case No. : WP(C)/5566/2020

         NAYANTARA BISWAS
         W/O. SHRI INDRAJIT BISSWAS, VILL. NUNMATI PART-I, P.O. HATIPOTA, P.S.
         CHAPOR, DIST. DHUBRI, PIN-783348.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
         TO BE REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
         DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

         2:THE COMMISSIONER

         TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
         P AND R
         D DEPTT. PANJABARI JURIPAR
         GUWAHATI-37

         3:THE DIRECTOR

          P AND R D
          ASSAM
          PANJABARI
          JURIPAR
          GUWAHATI-37.

         4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

          DHUBRI ZILA PARISHAD
          ASSAM
          PIN-783301.

         5:NABENDRA NATH
                                                                                          Page No.# 2/3

              GP SECRETARY
              BAHIR SUPATA G.P. UNDER BILASIPARA DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
              DHUBRI
              S/O. LT. BHUGYASWAR NATH
              VILL. NOONMATI PART-II
              P.O. HATIPOTA
              P.S. CHAPOR
              DIST. DHUBRI
              PIN-783348.

             6:THE BDO

              CHAPOR SHALKUCHA DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
              DIST. DHUBRI
              ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner     : MR. K A MAZUMDER

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PNRD




                                      BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                               ORDER

05.02.2021

Heard Mr. K.A. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A. Roy, learned counsel appears for the P & RD Department.

The petitioner who is the elected President of Geravita Gaon Panchayat under Dhubri Zilla Parishad has filed the present petition praying for setting aside the transfer order dated 06.11.2020, by which the respondent no.5, who is the Gaon Panchayat Secretary of Geravita Gaon Panchayat has been transferred.

Mr. A. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition and accordingly the same must be dismissed.

I have heard the counsels for the parties.

The Apex Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 has held that it is the settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Court that he falls within the Page No.# 3/3

category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered or suffers from a legal injury can challenge the act or action or order in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Apex Court further held that it is implicit in the existence of such extraordinary writ jurisdiction that the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right as the same is the foundation for the exerciser of a writ jurisdiction.

In the present case, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person as no right of his interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized just because the respondent no.5 has been transferred.

In view of the judgment of the Apex Court and as no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated, the writ petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant