Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010064962025 2025:GAU-AS:4026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1741/2025 MAHMUDUL ALAM SON OF ABBASH ALI, RESIDENT OF KACHARI SOLMARI, KAMRUP, PIN- 781354, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY , GUWAHATI DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. 2:THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER GANESH MANDIR GUWAHATI- 781006 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 3:THE COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GANESH MANDIR GUWAHATI- 781006 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 4:THE COLLECTOR GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION NABIN CHANDRA BORDOLOI HALL HEM BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI- 781001 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 5:THE ASSISTANT TOWN PLANNER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION UZANBAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 6:SYED AMMENUL ALAM SON OF LATE SHAMSUL ALAM RESIDENT OF S.S. ROAD LAKHTOKIA GUWAHATI-781001 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 7:BALJIT SINGH SON OF MOHANJIT SINGH RESIDENT OF LAKHTOKIA DANISH ROAD FANCY BAZAR MARKET GUWAHATI-781001 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 8:INDERJIT SINGH SON OF MOHANJIT SINGH RESIDENT OF LAKHTOKIA DANISH ROAD FANCY BAZAR MARKET GUWAHATI-781001 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K P PATHAK, MR. C PAUL,MR BHARGAV DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GDD, SC, GMC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 04.04.2025 Heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Page No.# 3/5 Standing Counsel, GMC for the respondent nos. 1-5. 2. The petitioner has stated that he is a tenant of a iron structured shop measuring about 300 square feet located at Lakhtokia, Guwahati and he is in occupation of the said tenanted premises on the strength of a rental agreement executed with the landowner of the said premises. The petitioner has further stated that he has been operating a garment shop from the said tenanted premises in the name and style of ‘Alam Traders’ after obtaining all requisite permissions/certificates/licenses, etc. from the authorities. 3. The petitioner has stated that two other tenants under the same landowner have instituted a writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 6119/2024 alleging arbitrary action on the part of the respondent Guwahati Municipal Corporation authorities. In the course of deliberation of the said writ petition on 18.12.2024 which led to passing of an interim order dated 18.12.2024, the issue of occupation of the tenanted premises by the petitioner had also came up for discussion. By the said interim order dated 18.12.2024, the Court had observed that the respondent no. 3 and the respondent no. 4 therein would ensure removal of the obstruction on the eastern side and also ensure entry and exit on the southern side within the stipulated period without effecting the kiosk of Mahmadul Alam [the petitioner], The petitioner has stated that he is not a party in the writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 6119/2024. 4. In the interim order dated 18.12.2024, the Court had further observed as under :- 14. In view of the order passed today, the order of 17.12.2024, more particularly, the direction at paragraph-8 of the said order will stand modified to the extent that the GMC authorities will issue notice to the said Mahmadul Alam, if not already issued and thereafter, upon due verification shall decide on the aspect of grant of trade license to such a person to run the shop at the same premises where the Kiosk is permitted to be erected and also to examine whether there is any violation of the building Bye laws/the Rules under GMC and GMDA authorities by the said Muhammad Alam and the respondents no. 3 and 4 while executing the said tenanted lease agreement between them. If Page No.# 4/5 any such violation is noticed, appropriate action will be taken by the GMC Authorities under the provisions of law. 5. The petitioner has approached this Court by the instant writ petition alleging high handed action on the part of the respondent GMC authorities by stating that on 18.03.2025, the respondent GMC authorities had carried out a dismantling exercise, whereby, the iron frame standing in front of the petitioner’s tenanted premises [shop] had been dismantled and taken away, without issuance of any prior notice, as observed in Paragraph – 14 of the interim order dated 18.12.2024. 6. When the writ petition was moved on 26.03.2025, this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties had observed, in the interim, that till the next date of listing the parties shall maintain status quo existing on that date. Thereafter on 28.03.2025, when the case was listed again, the respondent GMC authorities were asked to ensure appropriate preservation of iron frame, stated to have been dismantled from the petitioner’s shop, and the parties were asked to maintain status quo existing on that date with regard to the shop of the petitioner. 7. Mr. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, GMC has submitted that since there appears to be certain violations in operating the garment shop by the petitioner from the tenanted premises, rented out to the petitioner by the landowner, the GMC authorities are contemplating to issue notice in terms of the observations made in Paragraph – 14 of the interim order dated 18.12.2024 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 6119/2024 8. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the event the respondent GMC authorities proceed in accordance with law and issue a notice to the petitioner to afford proper and effective opportunity to the respond, the petitioner would respond to the said notice. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in the afore- stated manner, this Court does not like to make any observation with regard to the respective claims of the contesting parties at this stage. Having regard to the observation made in Paragraph – 14 of the interim order dated 18.12.2024 passed in the writ petition and Page No.# 5/5 considering the fact that the respondent GMC authorities are contemplating to issue a notice in compliance of the same, this Court is of the considered view that instead of keeping this writ petition pending, the same can be closed. It is accordingly closed. 10. While parting with, this Court is of the considered view that after issuance of notice to the petitioner, the petitioner should be given a proper and effective opportunity to respond to the said notice and the proceedings so initiated should be brought to its conclusion in accordance with law by following the principles of natural justice. Balancing the equities and for ends of justice, it is observed that till the disposal of the proceedings to be initiated by issuance of a notice, the parties shall maintain states quo as on today. JUDGE Comparing Assistant