Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010176502022 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5806/2022 PONA TANTI AND ANR S/O- LATE DINANATH TANTI, RESIDENT OF VILL.- DEMOW LACHIT NAGAR, DEMOW, P.O. AND P.S.- DEMOW, DIST- SIVASAGAR (ASSAM). 2: MANJIT TANTI S/O PONA TANTI RESIDENT OF VILL.- DEMOW LACHIT NAGAR DEMOW P.O. AND P.S.- DEMOW DIST- SIVASAGAR (ASSAM) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06. 2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PANJABARI JURIPAR GUWAHATI- 36. 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SIVASAGAR ZILLA PARISHAD Page No.# 2/4 SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN- 785640. 4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DEMOW ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT / DEMOW DEVELOPMENT BLOCK P.O.- DEMOW DIST.- SIVASAGAR (ASSAM). PIN- 785662 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R CHOUDHURY, MR N RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 08.12.2025 Heard Shri N Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri S Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department, Assam for all the respondents. 2. Considering the subject matter, this writ petition, which is pending since the year 2022, is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. As per the facts projected, the petitioners are the father and son. An order was passed on 21.09.1992 allowing one Shri Suren Tanti to run a Pan Shop as he was physically challenged. Since he was disabled and unmarried, he had made a representation on 04.06.2022 for transferring the said Shop in the name of petitioner no. 2 who is his nephew. It is also averred that all the fee and revenue were paid up- to date. However, by the impugned notice dated 28.07.2022, the said Pan Shop was directed to be handed to the respondent authorities. Page No.# 3/4 4. Shri Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the lifetime of the said Suren Tanti, the petitioners had taken care of the aforesaid Shop and as a matter of inheritance, the representation should have been considered and accordingly, the impugned action is unsustainable in law. 5. Shri Dutta, learned Standing Counsel has, however, submitted that the allotment order itself would show that the same was made on peculiar facts and circumstances and cannot be a matter of inheritance. 6. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials have been carefully examined. 7. A cursory glance of the allotment order dated 21.09.1992 would show that the Block Development Officer, Demow had given permission to run the Pan Shop to the said Shri Suren Tanti keeping in view his physical disability. It is not in dispute that the said incumbent had passed away and the present petitioners claimed to be his brother and nephew. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, permission of the present nature cannot be treated to be inheritable in any manner as the same was given to the incumbent taking into consideration his physical disability. This Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 does not suffer from any infirmity. 9. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed and the interim order passed earlier stands vacated. Page No.# 4/4 10. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioners make any application for the permission to run any business, the same would be considered on its own merit along with similarly situated persons. JUDGE Comparing Assistant