JUDGMENT & ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. JI Borbhuiya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions. I have also heard Mr. D Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam, who appears on behalf of the State of Assam as well as the District Administration and Mr. BC Muchahary, the learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the BTC as well as Sri Mahamaya Dham Committee, Bogoribari, Parbatjhora, Kokrajhar which is a Committee constituted by the BTC. 2. 101 writ petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petitions seeking protection from forceful eviction by the respondents. The materials on record show that the North East Council had allotted certain funds to the Assam Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (for short,’ the ATDC’) for creation of facilities for tourists at Maa Mahamaya Dham, Bogoribari, Assam. A company namely, M/s. SBF Commercial Pvt. Ltd was awarded the construction work with a contract value of Rs.11,35,90,000/- for creation of the facilities for tourist at Mahamaya Temple Dham. The period of completion as mentioned in the work order dated 20.11.2023 was 18(eighteen) months. The scope of the work included construction of a Guest House (G+1 storey building); construction of a rest house (G+1 storey building); market single storey building; and site development work including development of the exiting pond; external electrification work and furniture and fixtures as per specification. 3. The petitioners herein in both the writ petitions claim that they are shopkeepers carrying out the business of selling items required for puja and other ancillary items within the vicinity of the Mahamaya Temple at Dhubri. They claim that they are mostly carrying on their business by setting up their shops below the staircase of the Mahamaya Dham Temple as was permitted by the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee as far back as on 06.04.1973. 4. The grievance for which the petitioners have approached this Court is that in view of the steps being taken for creation of facilities for tourist at Mahamaya Temple Dhubri they would lose their livelihood though they were permitted by the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee to establish their shops below the staircase. 5. When the first of the writ petitions were filed, i.e. WP(C)No.6437/2024, on 04.12.2024, this Court passed an order of status-quo with regard to the demolition carried out till the next date. 5. When the first of the writ petitions were filed, i.e. WP(C)No.6437/2024, on 04.12.2024, this Court passed an order of status-quo with regard to the demolition carried out till the next date. However, subsequently, by an order dated 24.01.2025, this Court, while issuing notice observed that the status-quo order so passed on 04.12.2024 shall remain limited to the 10(ten) writ petitioners in WP(C)No.6437/2024 till the next date of hearing. The interim orders, as it appears from the materials on record, have been continued thereafter in WP(C) No.6437/2024. 6. It is very pertinent to take note of that taking into account that the order passed on 24.01.2025 was limited to those 10 petitioners, who are the writ petitioners in WP(C)No.6437/2024, 91 petitioners joined together to file the second writ petition on 14.02.2025, which was registered and numbered as WP(C)No.953/2025. 7. The record reveals that in pursuance to the filing of the said writ petition vide an order dated 05.04.2025, this Court issued notice in WP(C)No.953/2025 and passed an interim order that there shall not be any demolition of shops of the petitioners and/or eviction process till the next returnable date. The interim orders so passed in both the writ petitions have been extended from time to time. 8. It is very pertinent to take note of an order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 13.06.2025 whereby, the learned Coordinate Bench directed the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar to make an enquiry/survey and file an affidavit thereby incorporating the detail particulars of such shopkeepers, the location of their shops, number of shops, if any, proof of payment of rent by the petitioners, allotment letters issued by the Temple Authority. It was also mentioned that the State respondents shall also file a separate affidavit bringing on record the detailed plan of the proposed market area for just determination of the cases. 9. The record reveals that an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent No.3 in WP(C) No.6437/2024. It is mentioned at paragraph No.3 of the said affidavit-in-opposition that prior to the initiation of the construction work, several rounds of discussions were held at different levels and the Vendors’ Association were well aware of the proposed plan of the market complex and committed to cooperating with the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee. It is mentioned at paragraph No.3 of the said affidavit-in-opposition that prior to the initiation of the construction work, several rounds of discussions were held at different levels and the Vendors’ Association were well aware of the proposed plan of the market complex and committed to cooperating with the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee. It was also mentioned that the shopkeepers voluntarily consented to relocate their shops to a nearby place for temporary adjustment in due time prior to the commencement of the construction and the shopkeepers were also assured by the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee that upon the completion of the construction work, they would permanently be shifted to the newly constructed market complex. It was also stated that the construction company faced obstructions during the execution of the construction work, despite repeated requests by the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee and the Contractor. The shopkeepers did not relocate their shops from the construction site and it is under such circumstances, intervention was sought for from the Sub-divisional Officer (Civil) on 04.11.2024. 10. This Court also finds it very pertinent to take note of the affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 in WP(C)No.953/2025, inasmuch as, the said affidavit is in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 13.06.2025, as referred to herein above. In the said affidavit, it is mentioned that an enquiry was conducted by the Additional District Commissioner and i/c, SDO (Civil) for Parbatjhora Kokrajhar and the register, documents and records available in the office of the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee were taken into considertion. What is revealed in the enquiry have been mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the said affidavit. Taking into account the importance of such revelation, this Court finds it relevant to reproduce the paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the affidavit filed in WP(C)No.953/2025 as hereinunder: "5. That in so far as the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 953/2025, the enquiry reveals that - (a) The petitioner Nos.12. 17. 21, 23, 24, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56. 58. 59. 61. 64. 69. 70. 72. 75.76, 77. 79, 81, 82,83, 84,85, 86 and 89 in W.P. (C) No. 953/2025, there is no record as shop keeper in the Register of Mahamaya Mandir Committee. 17. 21, 23, 24, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56. 58. 59. 61. 64. 69. 70. 72. 75.76, 77. 79, 81, 82,83, 84,85, 86 and 89 in W.P. (C) No. 953/2025, there is no record as shop keeper in the Register of Mahamaya Mandir Committee. The aforesaid petitioners never paid any revenue / rent for their shop to the Mandir Committee and they are not genuine shop keepers. (b) The record available with the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee reveals that the aforesaid writ petitioners had unauthorisedly run their shop at the proposed construction site or below the stair case of Mahamaya Mandir premises. (c). That the enquiry further reveals that the writ petitioners No.5, 65, 73 & 74 are neither recorded shopkeeper nor any shop is in their possession below the staircase of Mandir Premises Committee. They have never paid any rent to the Mandir Managing Committee. (d) That in so far as the petitioner No. 1 in W.P. (C) 953/2025, on perusal of the Register it is found that one Shoilobala Barman, W/O- Lt. Sushil Barman of Village Rajapara has been enlisted as shop keeper. No person in the name of Soilobala Barman, S/O- Nurin Karji of Vill- Rajapara Pt-II had been authorized by Mandir Committee to run a shop there. (e) That the records shows that the writ petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27,31 36, 42, 44, 46, 50, 51, 57, 60, 63, 66, 67, 68, 71, 78, 80, 87 and 88 in W.P. (C) No. 953/2025 are the genuine shop keepers, who have been running their respective shop there and also paid Revenue/ rent to the Mandir Managing Committee, till the month of December, 2023. The authority has no intention to demolish any shop and it is clear that the genuine shops that are required to be shifted will be allotted a site/shop in the newly constructed market complex on the completion of the construction works. The shop are located below the staircase of the Mahamaya Mandir premises and beside both side of the road followed to the Mandir. (f) The enquiry further reveals that the petitioner no. The shop are located below the staircase of the Mahamaya Mandir premises and beside both side of the road followed to the Mandir. (f) The enquiry further reveals that the petitioner no. 33 Mili Barman is the wife of Sibesh Barman, S/O: Nagen Barman (president of Vendor Association), has been unauthorisedly running a shop there. Sibesh Barman is also the petitioner no.1 in WP(C) No. 6437/2024. Further petitioner no. 90, Radhika Adhikari, wife of Ranjit Adhikari, (Secretary of Vendor Association) has no shop in her name there. Besides, Ranjit Adhikari being Govt. employee, who is running a shop there in the name and style of Hotel Nandan Kanon in the bank of Mandir Pond which obstructs in continuation of proposed development of pond work. Same is the fact with petitioner no.91 wherein revenue was paid by Rabikanta Barman but writ petition is filed by Sabita Barman. 6. That in so far as the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 6437/2024 is concerned, the deponent begs to state that the 9 (nine) Nos. of writ petitioners in the writ petition do not have any shop located at the construction site that are required to be relocated. Further the petitioner No. 2, Niloy Kumar Bhattacharjee is not a shopkeeper.” 11. From the above-quoted paragraph Nos.5 and 6, it appears that in respect to 44 out of 91 writ petitioners in WP(C)No.953/2025, there are no records as shopkeepers in the register of Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee. There are also no records that those petitioners paid any revenue/rent for their shops to the Mandir Committee, and as such, they are not genuine shopkeepers. 12. It further appears that the writ petitioner Nos.5, 65, 73, and 74 of WP(C)No.953/2025 are neither recorded shopkeepers nor any shop is there in their possession below the staircase of the Mandir premises. Further to that, it is also mentioned that the petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, 31, 36, 42, 44, 46, 50, 51, 57, 60, 63, 66, 67, 68, 71, 78, 80, 87, and 88 in WP(C)No.953/2025 are genuine shopkeepers, who are running their respective shops by paying revenue/rent to the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee till the month of December 2023. 13. 13. It is of importance to note the statement made at paragraph 5(e) as quoted above that the authority has no intention to demolish any shops and the genuine shops that are required to be shifted would be allotted a site/shop in the newly constructed market complex on the completion of the construction work. Further to that, it is also mentioned that the 9 Nos. of petitioners in WP(C)No.6437/2024 do not have any shops at the construction site that are required to be relocated. In addition to that, the petitioner No.2 in WP(C)No.6437/2024 is not a shopkeeper. 14. The petitioners thereupon had filed a reply in WP(C)No.6437/2024, reiterating their stand in the writ petition. 15. This Court had heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and had also perused the materials on record. 16. During the course of the hearing, Mr. D Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate, who appears on behalf of the State Government as well as the District Administration placed before this Court 3(three) photographs, a Site Plan of the proposed construction to be carried out for the market. It was submitted during the course of the hearing that the area wherein the market complex would be constructed is within the Blue Line as shown in the said photographs. The said photographs are kept on record and marked with the letters ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’. In addition to that, the Site Plan which is placed is kept on record and marked with the letter ‘D’. 17. In the background of the above pleadings as well as the documents which were placed before this Court, the question, therefore, arises as to whether this Court should interfere with the construction to be carried out in terms with the work order dated 11.02.2023, issued to M/s. SBF Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 18. In the previous segments of the instant judgment, while considering the affidavit so filed by the respondent No.3 in WP(C)No.953/2025, it is mentioned that those genuine shopkeepers, who have to be relocated in view of the construction to be carried out would be accommodated in the newly constructed market complex. 19. In the previous segments of the instant judgment, while considering the affidavit so filed by the respondent No.3 in WP(C)No.953/2025, it is mentioned that those genuine shopkeepers, who have to be relocated in view of the construction to be carried out would be accommodated in the newly constructed market complex. 19. This Court cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that if there are shopkeepers carrying on business in the area which belongs to the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee without any permission, they are not entitled to any equitable relief, taking into account that the said persons knew it very well at the time of establishing their shops that they have no right to do so. Be that as it may, this Court finds it pertinent to observe that an opportunity should be given to all the petitioners, who have been mentioned as not genuine shopkeepers in the affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 to prove that they are genuine shopkeepers having set up shops with due permission as well as paying rent/revenue to the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee. 20. Considering the above, this Court, therefore, disposes of both the writ petitions with the following observations and directions: (i). The respondent authorities herein shall be at liberty to carry out the necessary constructions for the creation of tourist facilities in the Mahamaya Temple Dhubri, Assam. In doing so, if there is a requirement of carrying out any demolition, the respondent authorities are at liberty to do so. However, in respect to those genuine shopkeepers, who have to shift or relocate or whose shops have been demolished, those shopkeepers have to be accommodated in the new market complex which is proposed to be constructed as it is the undertaking given before this Court at paragraph 5(e) of the affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 in WP(C)No.953/2025 that they would be provided site/shop in the proposed market complex. (ii). (ii). This Court further observes that in the circumstance, the other petitioners herein, who have been held to be not genuine in the affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 in WP(C)No.953/2025 are in possession of documents which would show that they with the permission of the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee have set up their shops and further have been paying the rent to the said Committee, they shall be at liberty to approach the respondent No.3 as well as the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee seeking allotment in the market complex which is to be constructed. Such petitioners would be required to submit respective representations along with documents for proving that they have set up their shops on the basis of permission and they have been paying the rent to the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee till the month of December, 2023. (iii). The respondent No. 3 i.e. the District Commissioner, Kokrajhar as well as the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee shall look into such grievances and shall do the needful. It is observed that in the circumstance, if the petitioners referred to at Clause (ii) hereinabove are successful in showing that they have established the shops with due permission and have also been paying the rent/revenue to the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee till December, 2023, then in such circumstances, those petitioners shall also be similarly situated with the other petitioners, who have been referred to at Clause (i) hereinabove and should be provided allotment in the proposed new market complex.