Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 20 August, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010186852025
2025:GAU-AS:11198
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4793/2025
HUMAYUN KABIR AND ANR
S/O LT NURUSI ISLAM R/O VILL RAJAPUKHURI BAGICHA PO
CHUMUAKHAT DIST DARRANG ASSAM PIN 784197
2: SHAJAHAN ALI
R/O VILL RAJAPUKHURI BAGICHA PO CHUMUAKHAT DIST DARRANG
ASSAM PIN 78419
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI 6
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DARRANG
MANGALDAI DIST DARRANG ASSAM PIN 784125
3:THE DARRANG ZILLA PARISHAD
MANGALDAI REP BY ITS PRESIDENT DIST DARRANG ASSAM PIN 784125
4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO)
DARRANG ZILLA PARISHAD MANGALDAI DIST DARRANG ASSAM PIN
784125
5:ALEP ALI
S/O LT ABED ALI R/O VILL KAWADUNG PO BARBAGAN DIST DARRANG
ASSAM PIN 78419
Page No.# 2/6
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Rahman, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Talukdar, Govt. Advocate
Mr. S. Dutta, Standing Counsel
Mr. K. Kalita, Advocate
Date of Hearing : 20.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 20.08.2025
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. B. Rahman, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing
Counsel, P&RD Department appears on behalf of the respondent
Nos. 1 and 4; Mr. R. Talukdar, the learned Government Advocate
appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and Mr. K. Kalita, the
learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5.
2. Mr. B. Rahman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners at the outset submitted that the petitioner No. 2 would not
like to press the instant petition and further submitted that his name
may be struck off.
3. Taking into account the above, the name of the petitioner No. 2
is struck off and the instant writ petition is being taken up only at the
behest of the petitioner No. 1.
Page No.# 3/6
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that in spite of the directions passed by this Court on
29.11.2024 in WP(C) No. 5993/2024 along with other writ petitions,
whereby this Court interfered with the Cabinet decision dated
27.06.2024 as well as the impugned Notification dated 29.06.2024
insofar as granting extension to the existing lessees till new tenders
are not issued, the respondent No. 4 has issued a communication
dated 01.07.2025 in the camouflage of granting a temporary
settlement has granted an extension to the previous settlement holder
w.e.f. 01.07.2025 until further orders.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further
submitted that the said settlement which had been made in favour of
the respondent No. 5 was done in spite of the fact that the notice was
issued for settlement of various Bazaar/Hat/Meen-Mahal/Pond for the
period 2025-26 vide the notice dated 26.06.2025. He therefore
submitted that the said settlement so granted is contrary to the
directions passed by this Court in the judgment and order dated
29.11.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 5993/2024.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
minimum Government value as per the tender notice dated
26.06.2025 for the Ambachowk Cattle Market is Rs.16,50,000/-.
However, the respondent No. 4 has issued the temporary settlement
Page No.# 4/6
order in favour of the respondent No. 5 by permitting him to pay only
a meager amount of Rs. 2,404/- weekly, which clearly shows that the
respondent No. 4 has acted in a manner which is not only unfair and
unjust, but also is against public interest.
7. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel for the P&RD
Department submitted that it appears that the respondent No. 4 was
not aware of the judgment and order dated 29.11.2024 passed in
WP(C) No. 5993/2024 and as such, had issued the impugned
temporary settlement order dated 01.07.2025.
8. Mr. K. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No. 5 submitted that taking into account that somebody
has to run the weekly market, the Zilla Parishad was well within its
jurisdiction in terms with Section 105(5) of the Assam Panchayat Act,
1994 to grant the temporary settlement order dated 01.07.2025 in
favour of the respondent No. 5.
9. This Court has duly taken note of that the law is well settled that
there cannot be an extension granted in terms with the Assam
Panchayat Act, 1994 as amended up to date. This Court has duly
perused the temporary settlement order dated 01.07.2025 issued by
the respondent No. 4 in favour of the respondent No. 5. From a
perusal of the said temporary settlement order, it transpires that the
respondent No. 4 has chosen the respondent No. 5 to allow him to
Page No.# 5/6
run the Ambachowk Cattle Market w.e.f. 01.07.2025 until further
orders. No reasons have also been assigned, as to why, the
respondent No. 5 has been chosen except that the respondent No. 5
was the previous lessee. In fact, the purport in which the temporary
settlement order dated 01.07.2025 has been drawn up appears that in
the camouflage of allowing temporarily to run the market in question,
the respondent No. 4 has granted an extension to the respondent No.
5 which goes against the mandate of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994.
10. Additionally, this Court is further shocked to see that when the
minimum Government reserve price for the market in question as
fixed in the tender notice for the market in question being Rs.
16,50,000/-, why at a meager amount i.e. Rs. 2,404/- per week, the
respondent No. 5 was permitted to collect taxes. It is apposite to
observe that taking into account the weekly rate of Rs. 2,404/- per
week, the yearly rate cannot exceed Rs. 1,25,008/-. The act on the
part of the respondent No. 4, therefore, on the face of it is not only
contrary to the mandate of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, but also
is grossly against the public interest.
11. Accordingly, this Court, therefore, sets aside the impugned
temporary settlement order dated 01.07.2025 whereby the
respondent No. 4 had permitted the respondent No. 5 to collect tolls
for the Ambachowk Cattle Market w.e.f. 01.07.2025 until further
Page No.# 6/6
orders.
12. This Court further observes that till the settlement is not made in
terms with the tender notice dated 26.06.2025, the Respondent
Authorities, more particularly the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 may
exercise powers under Section 105(5) of the Assam Panchayat Act,
1994, keeping the public interest at the forefront.
13. With the above observations and directions, the instant writ
petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
