Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010201492025 2025:GAU-AS:13241 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5360/2025 ABDUL JALIL S/O ABDUL HAMID, RESIDENT OF PAIKAN PART II, PS KRISHNAI, DIST GOALPARA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 2:THE DIRECTOR PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOALPARA ASSAM 4:THE GOALPARA ZILLA PARISHAD REP. BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PO AND PS GOALPARA ASSAM 5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOALPARA ZILLA PARISHAD PO AND PS GOALPARA ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 6:THR KRISHNAI ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER PO AND PS KRISHNAI DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM 7:THE PRESIDENT KRISHNAI ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT PO AND PS KRISHNAI DIST GOALPARA ASSA For the petitioner (s) : Mr. M. A. Choudhury, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. S. Dutta, SC, P&RD Ms. U. Das, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 24.09.2025 Heard Mr. M. A. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the P&RD Department and Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the District Commissioner. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the action on the part of the Respondent Authorities for not allowing the petitioner to run the Krishnai Dainik Tamul Paan aru Shukan Supari Market in question and permitting some other person(s) to run the market Page No.# 3/3 in violation to the provisions of Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. 3. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent P&RD Department submitted that the law permits the Respondent Authorities to settle the market only by way of tender process in terms with Section 105 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. It is only during the interim period, the Panchayat can run the market in terms with Section 105(5) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. 4. Taking into account the above, this Court does not find that the petitioner has any conceivable right to seek a direction from this Court. 5. The respondents are directed to take appropriate steps for settling the market by way of notice inviting tender, and till such time, the respondents are directed to run the market only in terms with Section 105(5) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. 6. Considering the above, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant