Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010108322020 2026:GAU-AS:1047 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3213/2020 PANCHAM DAS AND 7 ORS S/O- LT. PARESH DAS, R/O- LANKA, WARD NO. 4, P.O. AND P.S. LANKA, DIST.- HOJAI, PIN- 782446 2: SAJAL KANTI DAS S/O- JALADHAR DAS R/O- LANKA WARD NO.7 P.O. AND P.S. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI PIN- 782446 3: DIPAK SHIL S/O- SUBASH SHIL R/O- LANKA WARD NO. 7 P.O. AND P.S. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI PIN- 782446 4: AMITAVA DAS S/O- ANANDI BARAN DAS R/O- LANKA WARD NO. 6 P.O. AND P.S. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI PIN- 782446 5: ANAMOY DAS S/O- ANADI BARAN DAS R/O- LANKA WARD NO. 6 P.O. AND P.S. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI Page No.# 2/9 PIN- 782446 6: MRIDUL CHAKRABORTY S/O- LT. MONORANJAN CHAKRABORTY R/O- LANKA WARD NO. 2 P.O. AND P.S. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI PIN- 782446 7: LAKHAN SHIL S/O- LT. ANIL SHIL R/O- LANKA WARD NO. 7 P.O. AND P.S. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI PIN- 782446 8: RANJIT DEY S/O- LT. REBATI RANJAN DEY R/O- LANKA WARD NO. 2 P.O. AND P.S. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI PIN- 78244 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 14 ORS REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER HOJAI SANKARDEV NAGAR P.O. HOJAI DIST.- HOJAI PIN- 782446 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER LANKA SANKARDEV NAGAR P.O. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI PIN- 782446 4:THE LANKA MUNICIPAL BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN Page No.# 3/9 L.M.B. LANKA P.O. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI PIN- 782446 5:THE CHAIRMAN LANKA MUNICIPAL BOARD LANKA P.O. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI PIN- 782446 6:JHUMA PAUL W/O- SRI SHARUP PAUL VILL- LANKA WARD NO.8 NAGAON ROAD P.O. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI PIN- 782446 7:APARAJIT DAS S/O- ABHAY CHANDRA DAS VILL- LANKA WARD NO.8 NAGAON ROAD P.O. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI PIN- 782446 PRESENTLY TEACHER OF JURI PUKHAN L.P.SCHOOL 8:KAMALESH RANJAN DEY S/O- LT. KUMUD RANJAN DEY VILL- LANKA WARD NO.8 HOLDING NO. 110 P.O. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI PIN- 782446 9:MEGHNA PAUL D/O- ASHU PAUL VILL- RANG MAHALA H.NO. 144 WARD NO.8 P.O. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI Page No.# 4/9 PIN- 782446 10:NILOFAR YASMIN W/O- SAYED AHMED R/O- LANKA WARD NO.3 P.O. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI PIN- 782446 11:BINA DAS W/O- LAKHINDAR DAS R/O- LANKA WARD NO.6 P.O. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI PIN- 782446 12:ARJUN DAS S/O- SURJYA KR. DAS R/O- LANKA WARD NO.6 P.O. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI PIN- 782446 13:ANITA PAUL W/O- RANJIT PAUL R/O- LANKA WARD NO.2 P.O. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI PIN- 782446 14:RUBI BORDOLOI W/O- DR. R.C. BORDOLOI C/O- PINKU DEY R/O- LANKA WARD NO.4 P.O. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI PIN- 782446 15:ANITA DUTTA W/O- DILIP DUTTA R/O- LANKA WARD NO.3 P.O. LANKA Page No.# 5/9 DIST.- HOJAI PIN- 78244 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID, MS. M R DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR D NATH B E F O R E Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Advocates for the petitioners : Shri A. Roshid Advocates for the respondents : Shri D. Nath, Sr. GA – Assam Date on which judgment is reserved : 29.01.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 29.01.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes Judgment & Order The instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayer: “It is prayed that Your Lordship may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue a Rule, calling the Respondents to show cause as to why the impugned select list for Bazar rooms at Piyoli Phukan Market under Lanka Municipal Board (Annexure- 11, 12 & 13) should not be set aside and quashed and fresh Notice be issued for allotment of Bazar rooms in 1st and 2nd floor at Piyoli Phukan Market under Lanka Municipal Board and after hearing the parties, perusal of records make the Rule absolute and/or pass such Page No.# 6/9 order or orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper. -AND- During pendency of the writ petition Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the Respondents to stay the Select List of Bazar rooms in 1st and 2nd floor at Piyoli Phukan Market under Lanka Municipal Board (Annexure-11, 12 & 13).” 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioners, who are 8 in nos., had participated in the allotment process of certain rooms under the Lanka Municipal Board, Lanka which was advertised on 26.02.2019. The rooms are in the Piyoli Phukan Market in the first and second floors in the Lanka Town. The petitioners claim to have filed their applications with all relevant documents and fulfilling the criteria. However, the settlements were not done with the petitioners and were done with the private respondents. 3. I have heard Shri A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the official respondents. 4. As regards the private respondents, there is a detailed order passed by the learned Lawazima Court dated 22.01.2026, whereby few of the private respondents have been served and there is no definite service report with respect to some of the private respondents. The private respondents however have chosen not to appear and contest this proceeding. Be that as it may, in view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, the presence of the private respondents may not be necessary. 5. Shri Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Page No.# 7/9 petitioners had submitted their applications pursuant to the notice dated 26.02.2019 in time and by fulfilling all the requirements. However, the cases of the petitioners were not considered in the proper perspective and on the other hand, the settlement of the rooms were given illegally to the private respondents. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the documents obtained under the Right to Information Act and has attempted to demonstrate that the documents of the private respondents were not in order, more particularly the accompanying affidavits with the application for such allotment. He accordingly submits that necessary interference be made by this Court in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, Shri Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate has submitted that though the incumbents who have been given the settlement have been made parties, no specific allegations of any nature have been made against them. In this connection, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant averments made in paragraph 15 of the petition which read as follows: “15. That the respondents have selected the private Respondents and others for Bazar rooms in Piyoli Phukan Market (1st and 2nd floor) in illegal and arbitrary manner. Hence the select list for Bazar rooms in Piyoli Phukan Market in 1st and 2nd floor is liable to be set aside and quashed and fresh application be invited.” 7. The learned State Counsel has submitted that since no specific averments were made in the petition, no rebuttal could be made in the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent no. 4 on 18.11.2022. He has, however, informed this Court that out of the 8 nos. of petitioners, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have already been allotted vitas in the second floor and first floor of the market Page No.# 8/9 respectively. He has submitted that out of the 8 nos. of petitioners, applications of few of the petitioners were not received and the others did not meet the requirement. In any case, the settlement process was fairly done in which the suitable persons were given the benefit of such settlement in a transparent process. 8. Shri Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioners, in his rejoinder, has submitted that even if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the settlement with the private respondents, a direction may be issued for consideration of the cases of the petitioners as and when the process of such settlement of vitas is done in the future by the Lanka Municipal Board. 9. The relief prayed for in this petition has already been extracted above. The same pertains to interference with the select list for allotment of the market rooms in the Piyoli Phukan Market under the Lanka Municipal Board. It however transpires that the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are also the beneficiaries of such allotment process. So far as the allegation of illegalities regarding the settlement given to the private respondents are concerned, a bald statement has been made in paragraph 15 of the writ petition which have already been extracted above. This Court finds force in the contention advanced by the learned State Counsel that in absence of any specific allegation, it may not be possible to rebut the same. This Court has noted the submissions of the official respondents made in the affidavit-in-opposition dated 18.11.2022 whereby the process of allotments has been justified. This Court is of the view that in absence of any specific and categorical averments with regard to the allegation of illegalities qua the settlement made with the private respondents, there may not be a scope for interference with such allotment, more so, when 2 amongst Page No.# 9/9 the petitioners are also the beneficiaries. 10. This Court has also noted that sufficient time has elapsed since the date of settlement and interest of justice and equity may not require any interference at this stage which will amount to unsettling settled position. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the present may not be a fit case for interference and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. It is however needless to mention that in any future allotment process of vitas / market rooms, if the petitioners apply for the same, their cases are to be considered fairly and in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant