Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010075682025 2025:GAU-AS:4579 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1986/2025 SHREE GAUHATI GAUSHALA TRUST A REGISTERED PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SATI JOYMATI ROAD, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP M ASSAM 781009, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM AND ITS BRANCH AT MALIGAON, GUWAHATI-781011, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, IN THE PRESENT PROCEDDINGS REP. BY DR. ASHOK DHANUKA, THE TRUSTEE-IN-CHARGE OF THE PETITIONERS TRUST VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPT. OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS, ASSAM SECRETARIATE, DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GUWAHATI 3:THE COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GUWAHATI 4:THE WARRANT OFFICER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GUWAHAT Advocate for the Petitioner : , B SARMA,MR S J SAIKIA,MR P K BORA,MR. N N DUTTA,MR P BARUAH,DR. ASHOK SARAF Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 10.04.2025 1. Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Nayka, learned Standing Counsel for the GMC representing the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. The challenge made in this writ petition is demand notice dated 26.12.2024 issued by the Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation to the petitioner Trust for payment of General Property Tax allegedly payable to the Corporation and subsequent proposed attachment of properties. 3. The basic ground of such challenge is that the petitioner Trust and Guwahati Municipal Corporation had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 10.05.1991 and in terms of the aforesaid Memorandum, the petitioner Trust is exempted from payment of such tax inasmuch as it is the case that the petitioner Trust had already provided a strip of land measuring more or less 5 Bighas together with a wall on the one side for being used as road by public at large in general and inhabitants of village Pachim Boragaon in particular. The relevant portion of the recital upon the Memorandum of Understanding is quoted herein below:- “…………3. That the Second Party, in further expression of its appreciation to the noble gesture of the First Party, does hereby further assures that G.M.C. will declare and proclaim the First Party to be a Public Charitable Trust and further assures and does hereby makes a promise that for all times to come, the Second Party shall not levy and impose general property tax for the various holdings and properties held and owned by the First Party and which may be owned and held in future. The detail of the existing holdings is given in the Page No.# 3/4 schedule attached to the Memorandum”. 4. This Court sought instruction from Mr. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, GMC. On instruction, the Deputy Commissioner, i/c West Zone, GMC, has given him certain written instruction which, he is produced before this Court. The same is quoted herein below:- “Instruction in WP(C) No. 1986/2025 (Shree Gauhati Gaushala Trust –Vs- The State of Assam & Ors) Upon perusal of the relevant paragraphs along with the Memorandum Of Understanding executed between the petitioner and the GMC authority vide dated 10/05/1991, it appears that the then Commissioner has assured that the general property tax is exempted once the particular premises is declared as public charitable trust. For declaration of a particular institution be a public charitable, it requires the Mayor in Council approval as well as Corporation approval mentioned under Section 148 of GMC Act, 1971. However, No such approval of the Corporation as well as MIC is observed. With regard to the annexure VII of the writ petition, the representation dated 02.01.2025 addressed to the Commissioner, the undersigned begs to state that due to some miscommunication and not having the knowledge about the Memorandum of understanding dated 10.05.1991, such action was initiated. Perhaps some reasonable time may kindly be prayed before the Hon’ble Court to put up the matter before the competent authority, GMC”. 5. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is seen that the authority has not denied the existence of Memorandum of Understanding rather it is their case that to finally declare the Trust to be public charitable trust, there should be a decision of the Mayor in council and that for want of knowledge regarding the Memorandum of Understanding, such notices were issued. Page No.# 4/4 6. It is needless to say that such decision is to be taken on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding inasmuch as it is the stand of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation in the written instruction that they will take the formal decision in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.05.1991. 7. In view of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court, no further direction is required to be passed except providing that till decision of Mayor in Council is taken, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner so far relating to the subject property. 8. While parting with the record, it is made clear that if any grievance still arises or remain, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court once again. 9. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant