Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010026662022 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/913/2022 MUHIK AHMED CHOUDHURY S/O LATE NAJMUL ISLAM CHOUDHURY, R/O 64, NILBAGAN DEBOSTHAN ROAD, DEBOSTHAN, DIST-NAGAON, PIN-782481 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER JAMUNAMUK SUB-DIVISION (IRRIGATION) DABOKA HOJAI ASSAM 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HOJAI ASSAM 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DOBOKA HOJAI 5:THE BINNAKANDI ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT DOBOKA NAGAON REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 6:THE BORHAWOR GAON PANCHAYAT BORHAWOR HOJAI Page No.# 2/4 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETAR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K BARUAH, MR A DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION, SC, P AND R.D.,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 08.12.2025 Heard Shri AK Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Heard Shri S Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department (P&RD), Assam; Shri N Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department, Assam and Shri H Sarma, learned State Counsel, Assam. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances involved and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, 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 father of the petitioner had started a small Rice Hotel in Debasthan Bazar at Hojai in the year 2005. The petitioner has also relied upon an order dated 06.02.2014 issued by the respondent no. 5 allowing construction of a shop in Plot No. 91 in the said aforesaid Bazar. However, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Jamunamukh Sub-divisio (Irrigation), Doboka, Hojai had issued an eviction notice on 26.11.2021 followed by another notice dated 03.02.2022 directing the petitioner to vacate the shop. The petitioner had submitted representation before the authorities which was not considered and accordingly, the instant writ petition was filed. Page No.# 3/4 4. This Court, while issuing notice, vide the order dated 11.02.2022, had also granted an interim protection directing not to take any coercive action. 5. Shri Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Irrigation Department would not have the competence to issue such eviction order. In any case, he has submitted that such impugned action would also not be justified inasmuch, as the shop in question is at a considerable distance from the embankment. He has also informed this Court that pursuant to the interim order dated 11.02.2022, the petitioner is continuing his business. 6. Shri Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department has fairly submitted that though the notice was issued by the officials of the Department, there may be a question of competence to issue such notice. He has, however, submitted that such notice was issued bona fide and in the interest of public. 7. Shri Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department has submitted that the aspect to continue of the shop in question may be left to the P&RD Department as it is this Department which would monitor the subject matter in question. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon a broad consensus arrived at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned notice of eviction dated 26.11.2021 and 03.02.2022 are unsustainable in law and are accordingly, interfered with. It is, however, made clear that the appropriate authorities would have the right to ensure that the business run by the petitioner is in accordance with law and can take steps for any violation. Page No.# 4/4 9. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant