Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010160852026 2026:GAU-AS:11424 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4138/2026 ANOWARA BEGUM W/O DARBESH ALI, R/O HOWLY TOWN, WARD NO. 10, P.O. AND P.S. HOWLY, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781316 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE CHAIRMAN HOWLY MUNICIPALITY HOWLY P.O. HOWLY DIST. BARPETA ASSAM. 4:THE HOWLY MUNICIPALITY HOWLY REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER P.O. HOWLY DIST. BARPETA (ASSAM) PIN- 781316 Page No.# 2/3 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. H. Ali, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. G. Bokolial, Jr. GA, Assam BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 12.08.2026 Heard Mr. H. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. G. Bokolial, the learned Junior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Respondents. 2. Mr. H. Ali, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had submitted a representation on 22.07.2024 to the Executive Officer, Howly Municipality for the purpose of allotment of the room. 3. From a perusal of the notice which was issued to the Petitioner on 12.06.2019, it is apparently clear that the total consideration which the Petitioner was required to pay was Rs.1,00,000/- and out of which Rs.50,000/- was paid by the Petitioner sometime in the year 2019. The Petitioner has not been able to show before this Court that the Petitioner had paid the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/-. It is also seen that in the representation dated 22.07.2024 which was submitted almost Page No.# 3/3 two years back, there is no whisper that the total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid. 4. The Petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2026 after two years from the date of submission of the representation and in the writ petition also, there is no mention that the Petitioner had paid the entire amount. Be that as it may, the Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved on account of not handing over the room. 5. This Court in the above facts, does not find any good ground for issuance of notice in the present proceedings for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 6. Before parting with the records, this Court observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude the Petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the Respondent Authorities more particularly the Executive Officer of the Howly Municipality after payment of the necessary dues, seeking handing over of the room. JUDGE Comparing Assistant