Karuna Deury vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1531 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010079222022




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

                           Case No. : WP(C)/2797/2022

         KARUNA DEURY
         S/O- PREMA NANDO DEURY, R/O- VILL.- SIMLA, P.S. SIMLA, DIST. BAKSA,
         ASSAM, PIN- 781330.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
         DEVELOPMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

         2:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
          BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
          KOKRAJHAR
          BTC
         ASSAM-783370.

         3:MARKET SETTLEMENT COMMITTEE
          BTC

          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
          KOKRAJHAR
          ASSAM-783370.

         4:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          BAKSA DISTRICT
          BTC
         ASSAM-781372.

         5:CIRCLE OFFICER
          JALAH REVENUE CIRCLE
          JALAHGHAT
          DIST. BAKSA
                                                                             Page No.# 2/3

             ASSAM-781327.

            6:BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
             JALAH DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
             JALAHGHAT
             DIST. BAKSA
            ASSAM-781327

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. K SARMA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                          ORDER

Date : 10-05-2022

Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by an order of settlement dated 09.05.2022, the market named Simla Bazaar Bi- weekly Market ['the Market', for short] has been settled in favour of the petitioner for the period upto 30.06.2022. Mr. Sarma has, thus, submitted that in view of the said order of settlement, there is no surviving cause of action to pursue this writ petition and in that view of the matter, the writ petition may be closed.

Mr. S. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, BTC has also endorsed the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. N.P. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department for the respondent no. 1 is present.

Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to the arbitrary action on the part of the respondent authorities in the BTC, the petitioner has been deprived from being granted settlement of the Market from Page No.# 3/3

the previously impugned order of settlement dated 09.11.2021 made in favour of another bidder, which order of settlement has been set aside by the judgment and order dated 22.02.2022 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6283/2021, preferred also by the present writ petition and on that count, the petitioner is entitled to damages. In so far as the contention regarding deprivation of the petitioner from getting the settlement of the Market from an earlier date and entitlement of damages on that count are concerned, the petitioner may pursue appropriate remedy as may be permitted by law.

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties that the Market has been settled in favour of the petitioner by an order of settlement dated 09.05.2022 and there is no surviving cause of action on that count, this writ petition stands closed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant