Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7170 (GAU)

NARUTTAM CHANGMAI v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.

WP(C)/783/2025 · 2025-02-16

Kaushik Goswami

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010025922025 2025:GAU-AS:1635 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/783/2025 NARUTTAM CHANGMAI SON OF PURNANDA CHANGMAI, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO 14, JUNAKI NAGAR, BYELANE- 2, HENGRABARI, DISPUR, KAMRUP(M), GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781036. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GUWAHATI ASSAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3:M/S PRAGJYOTISH HOUSING PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SMTI SHITAL JAIN WIFE OF SHRI RAKESH KUMAR JAIN RESIDNT OF 4TH FLOOR OF AVANTIKA NILAY ULUBARI BAZAR ROAD P.O.- ULUBARI P.S.- PALTANBAZAR IN THE DISTRCT OF KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781005 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SISHIR DUTTA, MR P KATAKI,MS. A LALA,MRS R BEGUM,MS S BARPUJARI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, GMC Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 17.02.2025 Heard Mr. Sishir Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GMC for respondent No. 2. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking direction from respondent No. 3, i.e., M/S Pragjyotish Housing Pvt. Ltd. to provide covered space for parking in the ground floor of PIYA PLAZA-II Apartment, Borbari Main Chowk, VIP road, Guwahati in terms of the Sale Deed dated 20.04.2022. 3. The maintainability of this writ petition being questionable, the matter is taken up for deciding the same at the motion stage. 4. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the contending parties on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition and have perused the materials available on record. 5. It appears that on 26.04.2018, the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner executed an “Agreement to Sale” for purchasing an apartment in the project undertaken by the respondent No. 3. Pursuant to this, a Sale Deed was executed on 20.04.2022 between the parties. It appears that a dispute has arisen thereafter between the parties as regards the parking space. It appears Page No.# 3/4 that the respondent No. 3 is a Private Company. It further appears that the dispute that has arisen between the parties is purely arising out of a contract without the respondent having the obligation of discharging a public duty. 6. Apt to refer the prayer portion sought for in the instant writ petition, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:- “It is therefore, prayed that Your Lordships would be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issued Rule, calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondent No. 3 to provide covered space for parking in the ground floor of PIYA PLAZA II Apartment, Borbari Main Chowk, VIP road, Guwahati according to the terms and conditions of the Sale Deed dated 20.04.2022 and/or why any other appropriate writ or direction should not be issued to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of covered parking space in the ground floor of PIYA PLAZA II Apartment, Borbari Main Chowk, VIP road, Guwahati and/or pass appropriate order/orders to give full and effective relief(s) to the petitioner and upon hearing the causes if any Your Lorship would be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or pass any order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.” 7. It thus appears that the petitioner is trying to enforce the aforesaid dispute by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is purely private right remedy and hence, this writ petition is not maintainable. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Page No.# 4/4 9. It is needless to be clarified that the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his right before the competent Court, in accordance with law. 10. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant