Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010233162015 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4072/2015 KARTIK MAZUMDAR and 2 ORS. S/O- JNANENDRA MAZUMDAR 2: SEFALI LALA W/O- NITYARANJAN LALA 3: ANJU DASGUPTA W/O SAIL DASGUPTA ALL ARE R/O- BY LANE NO. 1 TO DHOPOLIA ROAD JYOTIKUCHI TINALI SHANKAR HOTEL BUS STAND GHY- 34 KAMRUP M ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 15 ORS REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE MINISTRY OF PLANNING and PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION, SARDAR PATEL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 1. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION GHY- 6 ASSAM. 3:BIJOYA CHAKRABORTY NO. 7 GUWAHATI PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY P.O.- DISPUR GHY- 5. 4:HEMANTA TALUKDAR MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Page No.# 2/6 54 WEST GUWAHATI CONSTITUENCY. 5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER M PANBAZAR GHY- 1. 6:THE GAUHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER BHANGAGARH GHY- 5. 7:THE COMMISSIONER G.M.C. PANBAZAR GHY- 1. 8:THE WARD COUNCILLOR SRI JONA RABHA WARD NO. 16 JYOTIKUCHI GHY- 34. 9:THE GMC LOKHRA DIV. 6 REP. BY....... LOKHRA GHY- 34. 10:MINA BOSE W/O- LT. PARIMAL BOSE H.NO.5. 11:KALPANA DEY W/O- PRABHAT DEY H.NO. 7. 12:MALINA DAS W/O- C.R. DAS. 13:SANDHYA RANI BARMAN W/O- M.B. BARMAN. 14:MANJU BARUA W/O- JIWAN BARUA. 15:LAKHI BARDHAN W/O- MANIK BARDHAN. 16:ANIL SARKAR Page No.# 3/6 S/O- B. SARKAR RESPONDENT NO. 10 TO 16 ALL ARE R/O- BYE LANE- 1 TO DHUPALIA ROAD SANKAR HOTEL TINIALI GHY- 34 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S DAS, MR.M K MAJUMDAR,MR.A K PURKAYASTHA,MR.P K KALITA,MR.D DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GMC, MR.P K BARMAN(R-10 to 15),ASSTT.S.G.I.(R1),MS.D D BARMAN(R-10 to 15),MR. D C BORAH(R-1),SC, G M D A(R6),GA, ASSAM(R2 & 5),MR.T THAKURIA(R-3),C.G.C.,MR.S BORA(R7-9),MR.D NANDI(R- 10 to 15) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 10-12-2025 Heard Shri A. K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GMC and GMDA; Ms. M. Barman, learned State Counsel and Shri D. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 10 to 15. 2. This writ petition was instituted in the year 2015 with the following prayer: “In the premises aforesaid it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit the Writ Petition call for the records issue Rule calling upon Respondents to show cause as to why the Writ of and / or in the nature of Certiorary and / or any other Writ, Order or Direction of like nature should not be issued declaring the impugned action or inaction of the Respondent as to be unfair, illegal and alleging arbitrary discriminatory improper unconstitutional and / or as to why the impugned Page No.# 4/6 action or inaction of the State Respondent should not be struck down and /or as to why a Writ of and / or in the nature of Mandamus and / or any other Writ order or direction of like nature should not be issued directing and commanding the Respondent to recall or withdraw or cancel their impugned decision in refusing to supervise or monitor or interfere with the construction work in question and or directing and commanding the Respondents to look into the grievances of the Petitioners and take appropriate decision thereon after affording the reasonable opportunity of being heard and / or directing and commanding the Respondent to supervise monitor or to undertake the construction works in question in order to ensure the proper and effective utilization of the allotted fund and M.P. quota as well as the equal enjoyment of the construction work may it available to the Petitioners and all other inhabitant in equal manner and equal extent and / or directing and commanding the Respondent to extend the drainage facility equally to the Petitioners and / or as to why a writ of and on in the nature of prohibition or any other writ order or direction of like nature should not be issued prohibiting the respondent from misusing the public funds and / or depriving the petitioners from enjoying the said drainage facility in equal manner and equal extent as that off all other inhabitants of the said locality and / or upon cause or causes being shown and after hearing the Petitioner make the rule absolute and / or further be pleased to pass any other or further order or orders as to the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. And Pending final disposal of rule further be pleased to pass an interim order suspending the further construction work and / or also be pleased to pass further interim order directing the Deputy Commissioner (Metro) to Page No.# 5/6 submit a status / progress report pertaining to said construction work and / or be pleased to pass any order or further suitable interim order or orders as to the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 3. Shri Purkayastha, the learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that by efflux of considerable length of time, the prayer, as such may not have any efficacy. He has however expressed that the problem of water logging is a serious issue which needs immediately redressal. 4. Shri Nandi, the learned counsel for the private respondents has however submitted that the petitioners, on their own volition have created this problem which is affecting the entire neighbourhood. He has submitted that the drain on the southern part of the road was constructed by sacrificing part of the individual lands by the private respondents and in the said process, the petitioners had refused to cooperate leading to the present problem. 5. Shri Bora, the learned Standing Counsel has however submitted that if the petitioners submit a fresh representation to the GMC/GMDA, the problem would be attempted to be resolved. 6. This Court is of the opinion that without going into the past history of allegations and counter allegations, the petitioners be given a liberty to file a fresh representation before the Commissioner, GMC putting in details the entire problems and the possible solutions. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage has also submitted that the petitioners are willing to do the constructions at their Page No.# 6/6 own cost to remove the accumulation of waste/accumulated water. The said aspect may also be put in the representation and would be considered by the Commissioner, GMC. 8. Let such consideration and final orders be passed within a period of 45 days from the date of submission of the representation. The petitioners may enclose a copy of the order along with the representation to enable the authority to do the needful in terms of the said. 9. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant