Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010063052020 2025:GAU-AS:9738 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C)/2968/2018 FATASHIL POUR NIGAM BAZAR COMMITTEE FATASHIL GHY-9 DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND 4 ORS. TO BE REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER PANBAZAR GHY-1 2:THE COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GHY-1 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PANBAZAR GHY-1 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DIVISION GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PANBAZAR GHY-1 5:THE MAYOR GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PANBAZAR GHY-1 Page No.# 2/7 ------------ Advocate for : MR A DASGUPTA Advocate for : SC GMC appearing for GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND 4 ORS. Linked Case : WP(C)/2169/2017 HARIPADA MANDAL and 29 ORS. SHOP NO.1 VERSUS GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and 4 ORS. TO BE REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER PANBAZAR GUWAHATI-1. B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) :Mr. B Chakraborty In WP(C)No.2169/2017 Advocates for the petitioner(s) :Mr. A Dasgupta, In WP(C)No.2968/2018 Senior Advocate Ms. B Das Advocates for the respondent(s) :Mr. S Bora Standing Counsel, GMC Date of hearing & judgment :29.07.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. B Chakraborty, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the petitioners in WP(C)No.2169/2017 and Mr. A Dasgupta, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. B Das, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of Page No.# 3/7 the petitioners in WP(C)No.2968/2018. Mr. S Bora, the learned Standing Counsel, GMC appears on behalf of all the respondents. 2. Both the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment, taking into account the similarity of the issues involved. The case of the petitioners in both the writ petitions are that they are carrying on the business as shopkeepers in the Fatashil GMC Market since decades. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent Corporation is taking steps for construction of a multistoried building in the area where the petitioners are carrying on their business. The petitioners apprehend that the respondent authorities while evicting the petitioners may not raise the construction or keep the construction half done and thereby the petitioners would be deprived of their livelihood in the circumstance they are evicted. In that regard, reference was made in the pleadings to the Ganeshguri market, which has not yet been completed, despite decades having been passed since steps were taken. 3. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners, in addition to the pleadings, also submitted that there is a GMC market at Ulubari, where the construction had already been done, but there has been no allotment since many years and the petitioners’ apprehension, therefore, is that in the circumstance, the petitioners are evicted and the construction is not made or after being made, allotments are not given to them, the petitioners’ right to livelihood would be affected, which is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. 4. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submit that they are not against the construction, but would require certain protection Page No.# 4/7 so that they can keep carrying on their livelihood, while the construction is being carried out. 5. Mr. S Bora, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation submitted that though no affidavit has been filed, but the seriousness on the part of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) to have a multi-storied building cannot be doubted, taking into account that an invitation of bid for construction of a multi-storied building was issued on 11.12.2014 and thereupon a contract was entered into with the successful bidder. The successful bidder was also directed to proceed with the work on 06.01.2015. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that only part of the site could be handed over to the contractor on account of litigations and then also the respondent Corporation kept in mind the interest of the petitioners. 6. Mr. S Bora, the learned counsel for the GMC further submitted that the construction of a multistoried building is the need of the hour and on account of various orders passed in the instant proceedings, the said construction could not be carried out in the entirety. He further placed before this Court a Minutes of the Meeting held on 20.05.2025 between the petitioners and the respondent Corporation, wherein certain discussions had taken place as to how to resolve the situation. 7. In the backdrop of the contents of the writ petitions as well as the submissions so made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the question which arises is as to whether any interference is Page No.# 5/7 required from this Court in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 8. This Court has duly taken note of the submissions made at the Bar that in respect to the multistoried building i.e. 50% of the area wherein construction had started pursuant to the contract awarded to the successful bidder. The construction so carried out were casting of the floors insofar as the basement and the first floor are concerned. The materials on record do not show as to how many floors are to be constructed. However, this Court from the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties assumes that there are further construction required to be carried out. This Court is of the opinion that construction of a multistoried market is not only beneficial for the respondent Corporation, but it is also beneficial for the shopkeepers, who are carrying on the business in the said market as they would be provided with better amenities. 9. It is further seen that since the last decade, on account of various disputes and litigations, the construction of the multistoried building had not progressed. While the above aspect though is of vital importance, this Court cannot also turn a blind eye to the rights of the petitioners in the present proceedings to carry out their livelihood which is also a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. Under such circumstances, there is a requirement that a balance has to be arrived at whereby the construction of the multistoried building can progress on one hand and at the same time, the rights of the petitioners to carry out their business are completely not extinguished. The petitioners before this Court duly admit that while constructions are carried out there would be difficulties which Page No.# 6/7 they would face, but taking into consideration that eventually they would be provided with better amenities, they are not adverse to construction. 11. Another relevant factor which also comes to the mind of this Court while dealing with such matters that delay in construction leads to higher costs which is at the cost of the public exchequer. 12. Accordingly, this Court, therefore, disposes of the writ petitions with the following observation(s) and direction(s): (i). The respondent authorities are directed to complete the construction of the multistoried building which had already started within a reasonable period and preferably within a period of 15(fifteen) months from the date of the instant judgment. (ii). The petitioners herein are directed not to interfere with the progress of the construction. (iii).This Court further directs the Commissioner, GMC to work out modalities to accommodate the petitioners temporarily in the area where the construction has been partly done so that they can carry out their livelihood. It is observed that the petitioners may not be provided with the same area as the petitioners presently are occupying, but during this interim period, till the construction are not complete, this Court hopes that the petitioners would accommodate themselves. (iv).This Court further directs the Commissioner, GMC that immediately upon completion of the building the allotment may be made to all the shopkeepers who are presently carrying on their business in the Fatashil GMC Market and thereby giving them first preference subject to compliance Page No.# 7/7 with the terms and conditions. (v). This Court is aware that there can be no direction passed directing the respondent authorities to complete the construction within a particular period, but hopes and expects that the same would be completed within the time mentioned hereinabove. (vi).This Court further grants the liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court in the circumstance, they are aggrieved that the construction of the multistoried building is not completed within a period of 15(fifteen) months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the Commissioner, GMC. JUDGE Comparing Assistant