Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010157192024 2025:GAU-AS:2307 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3965/2024 SUSHANKAR PAUL SON OF LATE SUDHIR RANJAN PAUL, RESIDENT OF BELTOLA, MEHERPUR, P.O.- SILCHAR, P.S. SILCHAR, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788015 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE CHAIRMAN SILCHAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PWD ROAD P.O.- SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001 3:SRI SUBIR CHANDRA SAHA RESIDENT OF DURGAPALLY MEHERPUR P.O. SILCHAR P.S. SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788015 4:SRI SAMBHU SAHA RESIDENT OF DURGAPALLY MEHERPUR P.O. SILCHAR P.S. SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 78801 Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA, MR A HOSSAIN,MR. A B T HAQUE Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. S P CHOUDHURY (R-2),MS. J CHETTRY (R- 3),MS. S KANUNGOE(R-3),MS. S SEAL(R-3) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 05.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Konwar, learned State counsel representing the respondent No. 1, Mr. S. P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. None appears for the respondent No. 4, though service of notice upon the respondent No. 4 was accepted. 2. The petitioner is seeking writ of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 22.07.2024 issued by the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar. By the aforesaid order, the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar, in exercise of power under Section 13, 13(4A), 13(4B) and Section 30B, 30B (1,2,3) of Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, directed the petitioner to remove the boundary wall by demolition. 3. It is on record that on the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar, issued a show cause notice on 17.05.2024 to the petitioner inter alia alleging that the field report conducted by the Silchar Development Authority, Silchar, discloses that the petitioner had constructed boundary wall by encroaching 0.87 meter road in eastern side of the land of the petitioner inasmuch as, as per permission granted to construct such boundary wall, it was clearly mentioned that eastern side 1.82 meter road is existing. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to Page No.# 3/4 why, demolition should not be done for violation of the permission. 4. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice dated 17.05.2024 on 27.05.2024, inter alia contending that the boundary wall has been constructed by obtaining necessary permission and he has not violated the permission so granted and also requested the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar, to accept his reply and dismiss the complaint. 5. Thereafter, the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar by its communication dated 25.06.2024, requested the petitioner to attend the office of the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar on 29.06.2024 at 03:30 PM, either in person or through authorized representative for hearing. The petitioner was also directed by the aforesaid communication to bring all relevant papers/documents in supports his defence. It was also intimated the petitioner that in case of his failure to attend the same, the matter shall be heard and decided in his absence. 6. Thereafter, on 29.06.2026, an application was filed by the employee of the petitioner namely, Arjun Das Talukdar on behalf of the petitioner stating that the petitioner is out of station in connection with some important business matters and as such he is unable to attend the hearing and therefore, he prayed to fix another date for hearing. However, by the impugned order dated 22.07.2024, the direction of demolition was granted by the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar. 7. Mr. S. P. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar, in his usual fairness submits that an opportunity of hearing still may be granted to the petitioner provided he will not delay the proceeding before the Chairman. 8. Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, has also conceded Page No.# 4/4 to such submission. 9. This Court is also of the opinion that since an adjournment was sought for by the petitioner citing reason, the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar, ought to have granted one date of adjournment inasmuch as it cannot be said the petitioner intended to delay the matter more particularly, in the given facts, it was the first date seeking adjournment. 10. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s right of hearing has been rejected without any sufficient reason inasmuch as there is no reflection in the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 any reason for rejection of such prayer. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Chairma, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar, is set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 shall appear before the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar on 28.03.2025 at 03:30 PM subject to the convenience of the Chairman and thereafter, the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar, shall hear the matter and take a fresh decision within a period of one month from such date i.e. 28.03.2025. 12. It is needless to say that this order shall not be treated as any comment on the merit of the claim and counter claim of the parties as regards the violation of permission. The Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar, shall apply its own mind and decide the issue raised as per law. 13. This writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant