Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010283622025 2026:GAU-AS:2329 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/256/2026 M/S THE EXCEL ENGINEERS INNOVATIONS PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS AHSANUL ALAM, SON OF DEWAN JOYNAL ABEDIN, NEAR GAUDIYA MATH, TILAPARA, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN- 783101. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GUWAHATI DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, ASSAM 2:THE COMMISSIONER THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION NEAR GANESH MANDIR DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 ASSAM 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (I/C) THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SOUTH ZONE ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7 ASSA B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. S Sinha Page No.# 2/6 Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. S Bora, Standing Counsel Guwahati Municipal Corporation Date on which Judgment is reserved: NA Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 16.02.2026 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. S Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S Bora, the learned Standing Counsel, Guwahati Municipal Corporation (for short, the GMC) appearing on behalf of all respondents. 2. The petitioner is a company in the name and style of M/s. the Excel Engineers Innovations Private Limited. The petitioner is aggrieved by the actions on the part of the respondent No.2 to continue with the sealing of the petitioner's premises inspite of the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 05.08.2025. 3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner company had executed an agreement dated 10.05.2024 over 2 kathas of land for opening up a Branch Office at Guwahati. The trade license was obtained on 16.08.2024 from the GMC authorities. Page No.# 3/6 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that while the construction of the premises wherein the petitioner would carry out its Branch Office was yet to be completed, the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No.2, had sealed the premises of the petitioner on 09.08.2024. 5. The petitioner thereupon approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C)No.4246/2024. This Court vide an order dated 22.08.2024 disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioner to submit a reply to the notice dated 12.08.2024 within 1(one) month from the date of passing of the order and thereupon, the respondent authorities were directed to take a decision within 3(three) days from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted the reply to the notice dated 12.08.2024. However, the reply submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory and a speaking order was passed on 28.08.2024 imposing a huge penalty of Rs.3,25,000/- against the petitioner which the petitioner has to pay in order to de-seal the petitioner's Branch Office. 6. The petitioner thereupon filed an Appeal before the Appellate Authority on 06.09.2024. The appeal was registered and numbered as Appeal No. GCL/31/of 2024. However, the Appeal was not taken up for disposal, and under such circumstances, the petitioner was again compelled to approach this Court by filing another writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C)No.4198/2025. This Court vide an order dated 30.07.2025, directed the Appeal Committee of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) to dispose of the Appeal at the earliest and preferably within 15 days from the date a certified copy of the order was served upon the Commissioner, GMC. 7. The materials on record further show that on 05.08.2025, the Appeal was disposed of thereby holding that the order dated 28.08.2024 was devoid of any Page No.# 4/6 reasons. Additionally, the Respondent No.2 herein was directed to grant a fresh Trade License to the petitioner in terms with Section 180(2) of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation, Act 1971, (for short, the Act of 1971) with effect from 10.05.2024 and further to de-seal the premises of the petitioner. A copy of the order dated 05.08.2025 was marked to the Respondent No.2. 8. The respondent No.2, inspite of the said order did not de-seal the premises of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was compelled to submit a representation in that regard on 22.08.2025, but the respondent No.2 did not take any steps. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner is compelled to approach this Court for the third time by filing the instant writ petition on 16.12.2025. 9. When the matter was taken up by this Court on 21.01.2026, this Court sought for instructions from the Standing Counsel of the GMC thereby fixing the matter on 06.02.2026. Again, on 06.02.2026, the Standing Counsel of the GMC sought for time, and accordingly the matter has been fixed today. 10. Mr. S Bora, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation submitted that an instruction has been received from the Guwahati Municipal Corporation that the Commissioner GMC has taken a decision to approach the General Body of the Corporation for determination under Section 438(2) of the Act of 1971. It is also mentioned that pending the resolution and decision of the General Body on such reference, the Commissioner is not legally bound to implement the decision rendered by the Appellate Authority. 11. This Court duly takes note of Section 438(2) of the Act of 1971 and for the sake of convenience, the said provision is reproduced hereinunder: Page No.# 5/6 “438(2) If, on any such appeal [in full compliance of rules and regulations for the time being in force], the [Mayor-in-Council] reverses or substantially modifies any action taken or proposed to be taken by the Commissioner or any order passed by him, he may, within sixty days of the date of [receipt of order], refer the matter to the Corporation and pending the decision of the Corporation on such reference the Commissioner shall not be bound to give effect to the decision of the [Mayor-in-Council]. The decision of the [Mayor-in-Council], or where the matter has been referred to the Corporation as aforesaid, the decision of the Corporation shall be final:- ["but if the decisions are in violation of the rules and regulations for the time being in force, then the Commissioner shall refer the matter to the Government."] [Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, during the period of supersession, an appeal shall lie before the State Government against the decision of the [Mayor-in-Council].” 12. From a perusal of the above-quoted provisions, it would be seen that the Commissioner has to refer the matter within 60(sixty) days of the date of receipt of the order and it is only in such circumstances, the Commissioner shall not be bound to give effect to the decision of the Mayor-in-Council. In the instant case, the order dated 05.08.2025 was marked to the respondent No.2. In addition to that, the petitioner had also served the copy of the order on 22.08.2025. The period of 60 days is well over. Under such circumstances, the action on the part of the respondent authorities to continue to keep the petitioner's premises sealed not only violates the mandate of Section 438(2) of the Act of 1971, but also intrudes upon the petitioner's rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Apart from that, the Respondent No.2 not abiding by the Appellate Order and continuing with the sealing of the petitioner’s premises appears to be a case of malice in law and arbitrary. 13. Considering the above, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ Page No.# 6/6 petition with the following observations and directions: (i). The respondent No.2 shall forthwith comply with the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority upon receipt of a certified copy of the instant order. The said compliance shall not be later than 5(five) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. In that regard, the respondent No.2 is further directed to file an affidavit of compliance within 15 days before this Court from the date a certified copy of the present order is served upon the respondent No.2. It is observed that if no affidavit of compliance is filed, the writ petition be again placed before this Court. (ii). It is, however, observed that the above directions shall not preclude the respondent No.2 to take action in terms with Section 438(2) of the Act of 1971, if permissible under law, and if such proceedings are entertained, and the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority is reversed, the respondent No.2 would be at liberty to do the needful. 14. With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant