Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010105682024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2792/2024 BABU SARMA S/O- LATE NANI GOPAL SARMA, R/O- VILLAGE CHALANTA PARA PART I, P.O- CHALANTA PARA, P.S- JOGIGHOPA, DIST- BONGAIGAON, PIN-782140, ASSAM VERSUS THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, TO THRE DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT , JURIPAR, PANJABARI, GUWAHATI-781037, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER P.O P.S AND DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-781171 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BONGAIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD DIST-BONGAIGAON ASSAM. 4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER BOITAMARI ANCHALIK GAON PANCHAYAT BOITAMARI DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-78136 Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N C DAS, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 16.07.2026 The instant writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 09.05.2024 issued by the Executive Officer, Boitamari Anchalik Panchayat whereby the allotment of land for construction of shop which was given to the petitioner videorder dated 19.04.2024 was stayed.The primary ground of challenge is violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. I have heard Shri N.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD as well as Shri G. Bokolial, learned State Counsel. 3. As per the facts projected, vide an order dated 19.04.2024, the petitioner was allotted an area to construct shop on temporary basis for 2 (two) years. However, immediately thereafter, the impugned order dated 09.05.2024 was passed staying the allotment order. The petitioner claims to have filed representation on 15.05.2024 to revoke the stay order and no action been taken, the petitioner had approached this Court by the present writ petition in which this Court vide an order dated 31.05.2024 had granted an order of status quo. 4. Shri Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in spite Page No.# 3/5 of the order of status quo, there was activity of digging of a well for which an additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. He has submitted that a right had accrued upon the petitioner vide issuance of the allotment order dated 19.04.2024 and that right was taken away without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. He has also questioned the authority of the respondent no.4 in filing the affidavit-in-opposition by submitting that the deponent was not in Office on the date of presentation of the affidavit and this point was raised in the rejoinder affidavit filed on 21.05.2026. In the rejoinder affidavit, however it has been disclosed that for execution of a scheme for providing running water and toilets, the petitioner was appointed as the Chairman. 5. Per contra, Shri Dutta, the learned Standing counsel P&RD has, at the outset submitted that as on today there is no live cause of action inasmuch as the allotment was for 2 (two) years which had expired in April, 2026. He has also submitted that the petitioner had taken advantage of his position as the Chairman of the Committee pertaining to the scheme and the allotment order dated 19.04.2024 would itself disclose that the same was done without any public participation and merely on the basis of an application made by the petitioner.He has submitted that immediately on knowing about the same, there was public complaints which had required a temporary stay which was done on 09.05.2024. He has also submitted that the matter was looked into and vide an order dated 31.05.2024, the allotment itself was cancelled and this cancellation is not the subject matter of challenge.He has also submitted that no application for amendment of the writ petition or any new writ petition was instituted challenging the order dated 31.05.2024. 6. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materialsplaced Page No.# 4/5 before this Court have been carefully examined. 7. Before going to the impugned order and the grounds of challenge, the allotment order dated 19.04.2024 is required to be minutely examined. The said allotment order clearly discloses that the same was done without following any due process of law.Distribution of State largesse has to be preceded by a procedure so as to give equal opportunity to all eligible and interested persons so that transparency and fairness can be maintained which are the hallmarks of a robust democratic system of governance. It is also revealed that in the writ petition, there was no disclosure of the material fact that the petitioner was the Chairman of the scheme pertaining to construction of toilets and drinking water facilities and the same came to light only on filing of the rejoinder affidavit. 8. Be that as it may, the allotment vide the order dated 19.04.2024 was for a period of 2 (two) years which was immediately put to stay videthe impugned order dated 09.05.2024 due to public complaints. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 09.05.2024 was temporary in nature which had to be passed on public complaints and no final decision was taken.It however also transpires that subsequently, the cancellation order has been passed on 31.05.2024 which however is not the subject matter of challenge. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and also the fact that the period of allotment is already over, this Court is of the opinion that no relief whatsoever can be granted to the petitioner. The aspect that material particulars were not disclosed in the Writ Petition, more particularly, the fact that the petitioner was the Chairman of the Scheme for providing toilet and drinking Page No.# 5/5 water in the area is also a relevant consideration for declining the relief. There are also materials on record which would show that the land allotted was the land having the toilet and the well which were a part of the Scheme and the allotment itself would be against the public interest. 10. Writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant