Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010214392025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5698/2025 MUNU NARZARY S/O- DEBEN NARZARY, R/O - VILL.- BARIKODANGA, P.O. - GERUA, IN THE DISTRICT OF BAKSA, ASSAM - 781344. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370. 3:MARKET SETTLEMENT COMMITTEE BTC REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370. 4:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BAKSA DISTRICT BTC ASSAM-781372. 5:BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DHAMDHAMA DEVELOPMENT BLOCK BASKA ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 PIN- 781327. 6:SANSUMA BORO S/O- LAKHESWAR BORO R/O- VILL.- ADLA P.O. BAGANPARA P.S. BARBARI DIST. BAKSA ASSAM PIN- 781344 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K SARMA, MR. S BORUAH Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, S BARO (R-6),SC, P AND R.D.,SC, BTC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 09.02.2026 Heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. N. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department for the respondent no. 1; Mr. N.R. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, BTC for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 5; and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 4. 2. Aggrieved by non-settlement of a market, Nayabasti bi-weekly market [‘the Market’, for short] by the respondent BTC Authorities in his favour despite offering the highest bid value of Rs. 2,01,100/- purportedly with a valid bid and settlement of the Market in favour of the respondent no. 6, the petitioner has approached this Court by the present writ petition assailing such action. 3. Mr. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, BTC has placed instruction in the form of Communication no. BTC/Market-62/2025/8 dated 08.01.2025 received by him from the Secretary, Market & Fairs Department, BTC, Kokrajhar, wherein, it is mentioned that the competent authority of the BTC has decided to cancel the settlement of the Market with the respondent no. 6 and to settle the Market with the valid highest bidder, that is, the petitioner. Page No.# 3/3 Mr. Sharma has, thus, submitted that the settlement order for the Market is to be issued immediately in favour of the petitioner. 4. In view of the cancellation of the settlement order passed earlier in favour of the respondent no. 6 and the decision taken by the competent authority in the BTC to settle the Market in favour of the petitioner, the grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition has been effectively redressed. The consequential action of passing a settlement order has only remained. 5. The writ petition is, therefore, closed with the observation that the competent authority in the BTC shall issue the settlement order for the Market in favour of the petitioner forthwith. 6. A copy of the instruction in the form of Communication no. BTC/Market-62/2025/8 dated 08.01.2025, placed by Mr. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, BTC, is kept with the case record, marking it as Document – ‘A’. JUDGE Comparing Assistant