Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010036482025 2025:GAU-AS:2127 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1051/2025 SAIFUL ISLAM S/O EUSUF ALI, R/O VILLAGE BHAGAMUR, P.O. KAOIMARI, DISTRICT NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PANJABARI JURIPARA GUWAHATI 37 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NAGAON ZILLA PARISHAD NAGAON ASSAM 782001 4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER BAJIAGAON ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT BAJIAGAON NAGAON ASSAM 78214 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR ROBIUL HOQUE, ALHAJJ I UDDIN,MRS. R MOMTAZ,H M I Page No.# 2/7 HOQUE Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Advocate for the petitioner : Shri AI Uddin Advocate for the respondents : Shri S. Dutta, SC, P&RD Dates of hearing : 28.02.2025 Date of Judgment : 28.02.2025 Judgment & Order Heard Shri Alhajj I. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P & RD Department. 2. Considering the subject matter in dispute, submissions advanced and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. 3. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayer: “In the premises, it is, therefore, prayed that your Lordship may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other writ, order or directions(s) of like nature shall not be issued directing the Respondent authorities to Page No.# 3/7 extend the settlement of Barma Bi-Weekly Market in favour of the petitioner in terms of the notification dated 29-06-2024 till permanent settlement of the market and/or cause or causes being shown and after hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute giving full and complete relief to the petitioner and/or pass such further or other order(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper. -AND- Pending disposal of the petitioner, the petitioner may be allowed to operate the market as per existing rate.” 4. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to a tender process, the petitioner was settled with the Barma Bi-Weekly Market in the district of Nagaon vide an order dated 14.09.2023. The period of settlement was from 13.09.2023 to 30.06.2024. It has been projected that before such expiry, a notification dated 29.06.2024 was issued by the Government to continue with all settlements with the existing lessees with the same terms and conditions until new tenders were finalized. According to the said notification the term of the settlement of the petitioner has been claimed to be extended. It is also contended that such extension was on monthly basis and the petitioner used to pay the monthly installment in advance. It is contended that for the month of January, 2025, there was some delay in paying the advance and therefore, the petitioner had submitted an application on 01.01.2025 seeking 10-15 days time. The petitioner claims to have paid the monthly installment for the month of January, 2025 on 24.01.2025. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the issuance of a notice dated 02.01.2025 for settlement of the same market. It Page No.# 4/7 is also averred that the market has been given temporary settlement on daily basis at a lower rate. 5. Shri Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that without there being cancellation or discontinuation of his settlement, the impugned notice could not have been issued on 02.01.2025. He submits that though the period of his settlement was for one year up to 30.06.2024, the same was extended by the notification dated 29.06.2024 issued by the Government and he was paying the monthly installment regularly. He submits that the little delay in depositing the installment for the month of January, 2025 was for genuine reasons and in any case, the payment was deposited on 24.01.2025. He has also submitted that the current rate at which the market has been offered is much less than the rate offered by the petitioner. In this connection, he has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure 7 which is a money receipt for the daily rent on a market day. 6. Per contra, Shri Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P & RD Department has submitted that the projection on facts made by the petitioner is wholly incorrect and material facts have been suppressed. He has submitted that so far as the Government notification dated 29.06.2024 is concerned, the same was the subject matter of challenge in a number of writ petitions, the lead case being WP(C)/5993/2024 which were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 29.11.2024. By the said judgment and order, while the cancellation of the on-going tender process for the period 2024-25 was not interfered with, the decision to extend the existing lessee was found fault with and accordingly interfered. It was also directed that till finalization of fresh tender process, the respondent authorities were directed to run the Haats in question under the Page No.# 5/7 direct management of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat. 7. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner does not have any right at all to seek extension on the basis of the order dated 29.06.2024 as the same was interfered with. Accordingly, no fault can be attributed with the decision to run the Haats under the direct management of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat in terms of the order passed by this Court. He submits that the money receipt which has been enclosed by the petitioner at Annexure 7 is only a reflection of such arrangement. He has also placed before this Court, a copy of the judgment and order dated 29.11.2024 passed in WP(C)/5993/2024 and other cases. 8. Shri Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner in his reply has submitted that he is not aware of the aforesaid judgment. 9. The aforesaid judgment dated 29.11.2024 pertains to the Government notification dated 29.06.2024. By the said notification which has been annexed as Annexure 2 of the writ petition, the on-going process for settlement for the year 2024-25 was cancelled and the existing lessees were to be given extension until new tenders are finalized. The operative part of the judgment reads as follows: “37. Accordingly the instant batch of writ petitions are disposed of with the following observation(s) and direction(s): (i). The impugned Cabinet decision dated 27.06.2024 as well as the impugned Notification dated 29.06.2024 calls for no interference, in so far as cancellation of the tender process for the period of 2024- 25 and the decision to incorporate a viable rate in the tenders. Page No.# 6/7 (ii). The impugned Cabinet decision dated 27.06.2024 as well as the impugned Notification dated 29.06.2024 in so far as granting of extension to the existing lessee till new tenders are not issued runs counter to Section 105 of the Act of 1994 as well as Rule 47 of the Rules of 2002 and, as such, the impugned Cabinet decision dated 27.06.2024 as well as the impugned Notification dated 29.06.2024 to that extent are interfered with. (iii). The respondent authorities are directed to run the Haats in question till finalization of fresh tenders under the direct management of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat. (iv). The respondent authorities are directed to complete the fresh tender process upon finalization of the modalities at the earliest and preferably within three months from the date of the instant judgment.” 10. There is no reference or even a whisper in the writ petition regarding the existing judgment on the issue. Even assuming that the writ petitioner was not aware of the same, by the aforesaid judgment, the decision to continue with the earlier lessee has been interfered with by this Court. Therefore, the entire foundation of the present writ petition would fall through. Further, there is no averment that in the present arrangement made under the direct management of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat that the petitioner had expressed his interest and was not considered. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference has been able to be made out and accordingly, the writ petition is Page No.# 7/7 dismissed. It is however made clear that if any amount is found refundable to the petitioner, the same should be refunded. It is also observed that in the ensuing regular tender process, the petitioner would be at liberty to participate provided he fulfills the pre-requisites and in such case, his bid should be duly considered which however is to be done strictly in accordance in law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant