Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010063582025 2025:GAU-AS:4245 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1761/2025 M/S NARAYANI BUILDERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICES/REGISTERED PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 6TH FLOOR EXOTICA GREENS 191 RG BARUAH ROAD GUWHAATYI PIN 781005 DIST KAMRUP METRO ASSAM REP BY ITS PARTNER, SHRI ROHIT DEORAH, 51 YEARS,S/O LT RAJ KUMAR DEORAH A RESIDENT OF 191 R G BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI PIN 781005 DIST KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM 2: M/S PARAMOUNT TAJ A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICES/ REGISTERED PLACE OF BUSINESS AT BLOCK 1 PARAMOUNT GRANDE NEAR SARUSAJAI STADIUM GUWAHATI 781034 DIST KAMRUP MTEOR ASSAM REP BY ITS PARTNER SHRI SURESH AGARWALLA 45 YEARS S/O LT MANNALAL AGARWALLA R/O BLOCK 7 PARAMOUNT GRANDE NEAR SARUSAJAI STADIUM GUWAHATI 781034 DIST KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 3: SURESH AGARWALLA S/O LT MANNALAL AGARWALA R/O BLOCK 7 PARAMOUNT GRANDE NEAR SARUSAJAI STADIUM GUWAHATI 781034 DIST KAMRUP METRO ASSA VERSUS THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REP BY ITS MAYOR, GMC, GANESH MANDIR GANESHGURI GUWAHATI 6 ASSAM 2:THE COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PANBAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 3:THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN STATFED BUILDING BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI 781005 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MR. N BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GMC, SC, G M D A BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 07-04-2025 1. Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. S, Bora learned standing Counsel for the GMC/GMDA. 2. By way of the writ petition, the petitioner has assailed notice dated 01.03.2025 issued by the respondent/Guwahati Municipal Corporation. 3. It is the contention of the Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel that the construction was carried out in terms of the GMDA permit dated 23.03.2021 and GMC’s NOC and permit dated 02.08.2022, however, the stop construction notice lacks clarity and nothing is disclosed as regards the alleged violations, so as to effectively respond to such notice. 4. Per contra, Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam contends that even otherwise, the petitioner cannot carry on construction inasmuch as the original permission for renewal has in the meantime lapsed and during Page No.# 3/4 the process of renewal, certain deviations were found and accordingly, the petitioner was issued the notice and was directed to submit the revised planning permit from GMDA before renewal of NOC. 5. Therefore according to Mr. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam, the petitioner can approach the authority for clarification in this regard, which the authority will definitely clarify inasmuch the notice cannot be said to be a coercive action more particularly when the period of original NOC and Building permit had expired. 6. Be that as may, the limited grievance raised by the petitioner is want of clarity as regards the alleged violation. It is true that though in the impugned notice, it is alleged that certain deviations in setback and other deviations had been detected, however, it was not made clear that details of deviation of setback or what are the other deviation that has been detected. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner will not be even able to rectify the defects, if permissible under law or to submit an effective reply. 7. However, in view of the submissions made by the learned Advocate General, Assam, that the details will be provided to the petitioner, this court is of the opinion that the matter should be relegated to the authority (respondent No.2) once again to issue a proper notice by disclosing the details of the deviation that has been found by the authorities, so that the petitioner can effectively make it reply. 8. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 01.03.2025 is interfered with, however, with a liberty to the GMDA/GMC to issue an appropriate notice disclosing the details of deviation and giving an opportunity to the Page No.# 4/4 petitioner to reply. 9. This disposes the writ petition. Parties to bear their own cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant