Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010053362025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2339/2026 SRI DAYANAND RAI SON OF LATE RAJBALI RAI RESIDENT OF PATHAR QUARRY NEAR NARENGI ANCHOLIK COLLEGE P.S. NOONMATI GUWAHATI-781171 VERSUS THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GANESHGURI GUWAHATI REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER. 2:THE COMMISSIONER THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GANESHGURI GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE ASSOCIATE PLANNER THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION UZAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781006 4:THE ZONAL ENGINEER THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION UZAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 5:SMTI KRISHNA DEVI Page No.# 2/5 WIFE OF LATE RAMANANDA RAI RESIDENT OF WARD NO.24 PATHAR QUARRY OPP. NARENGI ANCHALIK COLLEGE P.O. UDAYAN VIHAR GUWAHATI-781171. ------------ Advocate for : MR. R DE Advocate for : SC GMC appearing for THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 22.09.2026 Heard Mr. R De, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. N Hazarika, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P Nayak, learned Standing counsel, GMC for the respondent/opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 as well as Ms. R Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S E Murtaza, learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party No. 5. 2. By way of this instant interlocutory application, the applicant is seeking impleadment of the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) as respondent No. 6 in the connected writ petition being WP(C) No. 1443/2025. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant, by way of the connected writ petition, has assailed the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in taking appropriate steps for dismantling/demolishing the illegal and unauthorized structure raised by the private respondent, which allegedly encroaches upon the common boundary wall of the Applicant. It is the specific case of the Applicant in the connected writ petition that private respondent No. 5 has raised a three-storied RCC building in violation of the applicable norms and guidelines and by encroaching upon the land of Page No.# 3/5 the Applicant. Pursuant thereto, the Applicant lodged a complaint before the GMC authorities. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to respondent No. 5 by the GMC authorities, to which respondent No. 5 submitted her reply. Upon inspection of the premises, it was found that several applicable norms and guidelines had been violated, whereupon a notice under the relevant provisions of the GMC Act was also issued. Upon consideration of the reply submitted by respondent No. 5, the same having been found unsatisfactory, an order under Section 337(3) of the Act was passed directing removal of the illegal and unauthorized structure. However, despite the aforesaid order, the unauthorized construction was neither removed nor stopped, compelling the Applicant to institute the connected writ petition. 4. It is further the case of the Applicant that in the pleadings filed by the GMC as well as private respondent No. 5 in the connected writ petition, it has been contended that the alleged deviations had been regularized on the ground that the construction had commenced in the year 2008 and therefore, the Building Bye-Laws, 2006 would be applicable. However, according to the Applicant, the respondents have not placed on record any document in support of the aforesaid contention. It is the specific case of the Applicant that apart from the deviations relating to set-backs and other building norms, respondent No. 5 has also constructed an additional floor in violation of the sanctioned Building Permission/Building Permit. The aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of the Applicant from the records obtained from the office of the GMDA pursuant to an application filed under the Right to Information Act. It is further submitted that an inspection was conducted by the GMDA on 06.11.2024, during which various deviations were found in the building constructed by respondent No. 5. In view thereof, according to the Applicant, there was no occasion or scope for regularization of the aforesaid deviations by the GMC authorities. It is the further case of the Applicant that during the pendency of the connected writ petition, Page No.# 4/5 the Applicant applied under the RTI Act for the relevant records from the GMDA, pursuant to which certain documents were furnished to the Applicant. The said documents, inter alia, reveal that respondent No. 5 had never applied for permission for construction of a G+3 building and that there was also no reference to any existing building in the proposed building plan. In view of the aforesaid subsequent discovery and the documents obtained by the Applicant from the GMDA under the RTI Act, the presence of the GMDA has become necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the issues arising in the connected writ petition. The present interlocutory application has, therefore, been preferred seeking the appropriate relief in relation to the impleadment of the GMDA and for bringing the relevant records pertaining to the construction and alleged deviations on record. 5. Mr. De, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the presence of the GMDA is necessary and essential for effective adjudication of the lis involved in the connected writ petition. 6. Ms. R Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that since no relief has been sought against the GMDA, their presence is not necessary in the connected writ petition. It is further submitted that since pleadings are already complete in the connected writ petition, the impleadment of the GMDA at this stage is not necessary. 7. Ms. N Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that she has received no instruction to oppose to the prayer for impleadment. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) is not a necessary party to the connected writ petition, inasmuch as an effective and binding adjudication of the issues arising therein can be made in its absence. However, having regard to the pleadings and Page No.# 5/5 averments made in the present impleadment application, particularly the documents and materials stated to have been obtained from the GMDA, this Court is of the view that the GMDA is a proper party whose presence would assist in the complete and effective adjudication of the issues involved in the connected writ petition. Accordingly, while the GMDA may not be a necessary party, this Court is of the considered view that its impleadment as a proper party would facilitate the complete and effective adjudication of the connected writ petition. 9. That being so, the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority, Statefed Building, Bhangagarh, Guwahati, District-Kamrup (M), Assam-781005, represented by its Chief Executive Officer, is hereby impleaded as party respondent No. 6 in the connected writ petition. 10. An amended cause title be submitted by the applicant before the Registry within a period of 3 days from today for doing the needful. 11. With the above observation and direction, the instant interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant