Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010096042025 2025:GAU-AS:6231 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2606/2025 SRI RAJAK UDDIN AHMED SON OF LATE ROHIM UDDIN AHMED, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RONGAGORA ROAD, NEAR ADITYA HOSPITAL, P.O. AND P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786125 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 11 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (METRO), PIN- 781006, ASSAM 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DISPUR GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO PIN-781006 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. PIN- 781006. 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER TINSUKIA P.O. AND P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN-786125 Page No.# 2/6 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TINSUKIA P.O. AND P.S.- TINSUKIA DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM. 6:THE MUNICIPAL BOARD TINSUKIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN TINSUKIA MUNICIPAL BOARD TINSUKIA P.O. AND P.S.- TINSUKIA DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM. PIN NO. 786125. 7:THE CHAIRMAN TINSUKIA MUNICIPAL BOARD TINSUKIA P.O. AND P.S.- TINSUKIA DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM. PIN NO. 786125 8:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TINSUKIA MUNICIPAL BOARD TINSUKIA P.O. AND P.S.- TINSUKIA DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM. PIN NO. 786125 9:THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER APDCL SUB-DIVISION-1 PARIKATIA TINSUKIA P.O. AND P.S.- TINSUKIA DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM. PIN NO. 786125 10:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE TINSUKIA POLICE STATION TINSUKIA P.O. AND P.S.- TINSUKIA DIST. - TINSUKIA ASSAM. PIN NO. 786125 11:THE TOWN PLANNER TINSUKIA MUNICIPAL BOARD TINSUKIA Page No.# 3/6 P.O. AND P.S.- TINSUKIA DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM. PIN NO. 786125 12:THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER TINSUKIA MUNICIPAL BOARD TINSUKIA P.O. AND P.S.- TINSUKIA DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM. PIN NO. 786125 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K PURKAYASTHA, MR. R C PAUL Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY O R D E R 19.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. AK Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SS Roy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12, Ms. N Bordoloi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Ms. M Barman, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1,2,4 and 5. 2. The petitioner has approached this court by assailing a final demolition notice dated 30.04.2025. The litigational background of this case is that the petitioner approached this court earlier by filing WP(C) 5133/2023 by assailing final demolition notice dated 17.08.2023, wherein it was a directed to the petitioner to vacate and demolish unauthorised construction of the building under Dag No. 419/420 covered by PP No. 50(M), 316 (O), Town Sheet No. 2. 3. In the aforesaid writ petition, a statement was made by the learned counsel that the illegal construction was carried out over a Government land for which an application seeking settlement under Bashundhar-2 scheme has been filed Page No.# 4/6 and therefore, he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to approach Tinisukia Municipal Board for regularising the construction so carried out by the petitioner. After taking note of the submission, this court observed that if any demolition is carried out prior to the consideration of the regularisation application to be filed by the petitioner, the regularisation application itself would become infructuous and under such circumstances this court under the aforesaid order permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to submit an application seeking regularisation before the Chairman, Tinisukia Municipal Board within 10 days from passing of the aforesaid order and it was provided that till final consideration of the said regularisation application, no demolition be carried out by the respondent Board. 4. Thereafter, the present writ petition is filed with a projection that though the representation was filed on 07.09.2024, however, without considering the case of the petitioner, the notice dated 30.04.2025 was issued, which is impugned in the present case. 5. Taking note of the aforesaid contention that without considering the representation dated 07.09.2023, the impugned demolition notice was issued, this court asked Mr. Roy to complete his instruction in this regard. On instruction, Mr. Roy produced two communications dated 07.05.2025 and 14.05.2025. 6. It is seen from the order dated 14.05.2025 that the petitioner was informed that the Municipal Board had taken note of the representation of the petitioner dated 05.09.2023 and 07.09.2025 and found no scope for regularisation of the construction for the reason that the construction of the aforesaid building was carried out in complete contravention of the Prevalent Building Bylaws and in Page No.# 5/6 clear violation of Assam notified Urban Areas (other than Guwahati Building) Rules, 2014 and Erstwhile Bylaws and Regulations, the same could not be considered and accordingly prayer was rejected. 7. Another communication is produced, which is a letter dated 07.05.2025 filed by the petitioner and addressed to the Executive Officer, Tinsukia Municipal Board, which goes to show that the petitioner sought 10 days time i.e. from 07.05.2025 to 17.05.2025 for taking steps in terms of order dated 30.04.2025 i.e. the impugned order. This writ petition was filed on 05.05.2025 and in that context Mr. Purakayastha, learned counsel submits that though aforesaid two communications were within the notice of the petitioner, however, same could not be brought on record as same were issued subsequent to filing of the writ petition. It is correct that the writ petition was filed on 05.05.2025 and extension of time till 17.05.2025 to demolish the premises was filed on 07.05.2025 and subsequent communication was issued on 14.05.2025. However, it is also correct that the matter was listed on 15.05.2025 and on that date it was within the knowledge of the petitioner as regards communication filed by the petitioner on 07.05.2025 and the order dated 14.05.2025. However, such facts were withdrawn from this court. 8. In the considered opinion of this court, non-disclosure of such fact, even, verbally by the learned counsel is not appreciated and amounts to suppression of vital material facts. 9. Be that as it may, considering the matter in entirety, the argument of Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel as regards the deviation of the construction etc. which are disputed by the Municipal Board, cannot be decided by this court in a writ proceeding inasmuch as there are alternative remedy of appeal under Assam Municipal Act, 1956 to challenge such an act of the Municipal Authority. Page No.# 6/6 Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy. It is needless to say that any observation made in this writ petition is not on the merit of the claim of the either parties. JUDGE Comparing Assistant