Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010014232025 2025:GAU-AS:6267 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/601/2025 LAKHYA KUMAR HAZARIKA S/O LATE JIBAN CHANDRA HAZARIKA, R/O VILL- BORDUBIA, P.O.- PITHAKHOWA, P.S.-TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR-6, ASSAM 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SONITPUR ASSAM 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PARISHAD SONITPUR TEZPUR 4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER BIHAGURI ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT BIHAGURI 5:TRAILOKYA MOHAN NATH PRESIDENT BIHAGURI SATURDAY WEEKLY MARKET UNNAYAN COMMITTE Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K SARMA, MR. S BORUAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., MR. K BORUAH (R-5),MS. P BORAH(R-5),MR. M ALAM(R-5),MS A DAS(R-5),GA, ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 19.05.2025 Heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the P&RD Department. Mr. R. Talukdar, learned counsel appears for the respondent No.2, while Mr. K. Boruah, learned counsel appears for the respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Sonitpur Zilla Parishad, which has been issued pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No.5190/2024, wherein the temporary settlement order issued on 16.07.2024, in favour of the petitioner in relation to the Tumuki Saturday Weekly Market, had been set aside and the respondent No.5 had been temporarily allowed to collect toll from the said market. 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the impugned order had been passed on the basis of the order passed by this Court wherein the petitioner was not heard. The impugned order dated 06.01.2025 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Sonitpur Zilla Parishad had also been made without hearing the petitioner. He accordingly submits that the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 should be set aside. 4. Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the P&RD Department submits that a Notification dated 29.06.2024 had been issued by the State Government on the basis of a Cabinet decision, wherein the Government would have a Page No.# 3/4 reserved price fixed for all tenders in question. Further, a bidder would be allowed to quote a price up to a maximum of 10% above the Government value of the market/bazaar/ hat/ghat etc. and any bid above 10% would not be accepted. This had been done for the benefit of the common people and to bring down price. The said notification had also decided to cancel all tenders issued by the P&RD Department for all markets/bazaars/hats/ghats etc., till a standard tender had been approved by the Government. He submits that the challenge made to the Notification dated 29.06.2024 in WP(C) No.5993/2024 failed and as such, in terms of the Notification dated 29.06.2024 fresh tender notices were to be issued for settlement of markets/bazaars/hats/ghats etc. He submits that all tenders that had been initiated prior to the Notification dated 29.06.2024 and in which the selection process had not been completed, prior to 29.06.2024, stood automatically cancelled. As such, no settlement of any market or bazaar etc. could have been made in respect of the Tumuki Saturday Weekly Market, either to the petitioner or to the respondent No.5 even on a temporary basis. He further submits that as per Section 105(5) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, the Panchayat Department is empowered to collect the revenue of the markets/bazaars/hats/ghats etc. 5. Mr. K. Boruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submits that on the date the Notification dated 29.06.2024 had been issued by the State Government, the respondent No.5 was settled with the market temporarily and the same had not been done in pursuance to any tender process. Page No.# 4/4 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. It is not disputed by the parties that neither the petitioner nor the respondent No.5 had been settled with the running of the market on the basis of any tender process. Further, in terms of the Notification dated 29.06.2024 issued by the State Government, the settlement of a market could be done only on the basis of a new tender that was to be issued after 29.06.2024. As no tender had been issued after 29.06.2024, besides the petitioner and the respondent No.5 not having been settled with the market on the basis of any tender prior to 29.06.2024, the petitioner and the respondent No.5 do not have any right to operate the market temporarily, in violation of the Notification dated 29.06.2024 and the judgment passed by this Court in WP(C) No.5993/2024. 8. In view of the above reasons, this Court holds that the question of the petitioner not being given any notice or opportunity of hearing prior to the issuance of the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 is only of academic interest. Accordingly, the State respondents are directed to ensure that the petitioner or the respondent No.5 should not be allowed to run the market temporarily, till settlement is made on the basis of a tender process. Till a regular settlement of the market is made through a tender process, the P&RD Department shall run the concerned market. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant