Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010111662024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/299/2024 ABDUL MANNAN S/O ABDUL MALEK, R/O VILL-SHILOCHI PATHAR, P.O.-BALAJAN, P.S.- BAGHBAR, DIST-BARPETA (ASSAM), PIN-781308. VERSUS J. B. EKKA AND 5 ORS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:PARTHA PRATIM MAJUMDAR SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:AYUSH GARG DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA P.O. AND P.S. BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301. 4:PANKAJ YADAV SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BARPETA P.O. P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301. Page No.# 2/4 5:AROOP PATHAK CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BARPETA ZILLA PARISHAD BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301. 6:GOPAL BORA OFFICER-IN-CHARGE BAGHBAR POLICE STATION BAGHBAR P.O. AND P.S. BAGHBAR DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781308 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D P BORAH, MR B PAUL,MS. S BORO Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N K DAS(R-6), MR S DUTTA(R-1,5),MS. N BORAH(R- 1),MR. K KONWAR(R-1) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 28.04.2025 1. Mr. U. Ghosh, learned counsel appears on behalf of Mr. D.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appears for the respondent nos.1 to 5, while Mr. N.K. Das, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.6. 2. The present contempt petition has been filed on the ground that the order dated 07.03.2024 passed in WP(C) 6634/2023 has not been complied with. Vide order dated 07.03.2024 passed in WP(C) 6634/2023, the respondents were to take a decision on the application submitted by the respondent no.8 therein, for Page No.# 3/4 running the Baghbar private market under Section 107 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 on or before 12.03.2024. The petitioner herein on the other hand, was the settlement holder of the Shewrar Bhita Janapriyo Anchalik Gorur Bazar from 01.07.2023 to 30.06.2024 on the basis of having been selected by the State Government for running the market. Thus the petitioner and the private respondent no.8’s interest clashed. The contempt petition had been filed due to the respondents not taking a decision on the application of the respondent no.8 to run a private market. In the meantime, the petitioner’s settlement of the market has ended on 30.06.2024. As such, it appears that the direction passed in WP(C) 6634/2023 does not have any relation to any of the petitioner’s right, inasmuch as, he has got no settlement holder’s interest in the market as on date, especially when no decision has been taken by the State respondents, with regard to granting of permission to the respondent no.8 in WP(C) 6634/2023, to run a private market. 3. With respect to question as to whether the respondent no.8 should be given the permission to run a private market, the respondent no.1 has submitted an affidavit, which is to the effect that the respondent no.8’s application would only be decided, after the Financial Rules which are being framed pursuant to Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 and it’s amendment, is framed/notified. 4. On considering the above facts, this Court is of the view that the question of consideration of the application of the respondent no.8 has got no relation with the petitioner, as the settlement period of the market with the petitioner has expired. Page No.# 4/4 5. The contempt petition is accordingly closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant