Page No.# 1/7 GAHC020005492025 2026:GAU-NL:74 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/168/2025 SMTI. SOMET CHANG D/O LATE CHICHINGKUM CHANG, R/O NEW MARKET, WARD NO. 19, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISISONER DIMAPUR NAGALAND 4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DIMAPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DIMAPUR NAGALAND 5:SMTI. NILOU AYE C/O CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DIMAPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DIMAPUR NAGALAND 6:SHRI XUSHETO C/O CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DIMAPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DIMAPUR NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : T. B. JAMIR, ASEN T JAMIR,MEYIREN JAMIR,I JAMIR,KILEM JAMIR,TERCHILA JAMIR,PETER SERTO Page No.# 2/7 Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T. B. Jamir. Also heard Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, learned Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. None appears for the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6. 2. By order dated 09.09.2025, this Court has already observed that the notice on respondent nos. 4 to 6 is duly served. 3. The present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner impugning the Cancellation Order No. DMC/PARKING/2025-26: 1299-301 dated 12.08.2025, issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Dimapur Municipal Council, Dimapur, Nagaland. The petitioner has also assailed the impugned Parking Permit No. DMC/PARKING/2025-26:1363-364 dated 19.08.2025, issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Dimapur Municipal Council, Dimapur, Nagaland by which the respondent nos. 5 and 6 were allotted the Parking Permit of the Ground Floor and 1st Floor of New Market, Flyover, Dimapur. 4. The case of the petitioner is that by an Allotment Order no. DMC/Dev-11/2022: 1056 dated 23.11.2022, the petitioner had been allotted the Parking Permit of the Ground Floor and 1st Floor of New Market, Flyover, connecting GS Road and Nyamo Lotha Road, New Market, Dimapur as an allotee. The pertinent conditions have been stipulated at Page No.# 3/7 Condition nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 wherein it has been stipulated that the allotee shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) as allotment fee, that the allotee shall pay a monthly rent of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand), that if the allotee fails to deposit his/her rent to Dimapur Municipal Council consecutively for 3 (three) months, then, it would lead to the cancellation of the allotment with or without notice, and further that, the allotment is not transferable and allotment could be cancelled/evicted as and when the said area is required by the Dimapur Municipal Council for any other purpose or for development works rather than the purpose for which allotment has been given. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has fulfilled all the terms and conditions as set out in the Allotment Order dated 23.11.2022. The enclosures to the writ petition has shown that the petitioner has paid the initial deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) and has been paying monthly rent of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) without fail till 07.08.2025. However, by the impugned Order dated 12.08.2025, the allotment given to the petitioner was cancelled by the Chief Executive Officer, Dimapur Municipal Council/respondent no. 4. 6. In the Cancellation Order dated 12.08.2025, it has been stated that the cancellation has been necessitated due to administrative reasons and in view of the requirement to ensure proper regulation and public utility of municipal assets. Thereafter, the impugned Allotment Order dated 19.08.2025 was issued in favour of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the same place where the petitioner had been allotted and for the same purpose. i.e, Parking Area. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard before the Page No.# 4/7 Cancellation Order dated 12.08.2025 was passed. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the terms and conditions of his Allotment Order dated 23.11.2022 clearly states that the allotment can be cancelled only if the said area is required by the Dimapur Municipal Council for any other purpose or for developmental works, other than the purpose for which the allotment has been given. 7. However, the impugned Allotment Order dated 19.08.2025, issued to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 clearly reveals that they have been issued the allotment for the same purpose, i.e, Parking Area and, therefore, the impugned Cancellation Order of the petitioner’s permit was not for any administrative reasons or for any developmental works nor was it given for another purpose. 8. Therefore, in view of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Cancellation Order is arbitrary and unreasonable and in violation of the principle of natural justice and prays that the impugned Orders may be quashed and set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on the case of Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Vs. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company reported in (2025) 4 SCC 641 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “80. Article 14 is an important facet of administrative, judicial and quasi- judicial decision-making in India and demands fair play in action. The object of observing the principles of natural justice is to ensure that "every person whose rights are going to be affected by the proposed action gets a fair hearing". The non-observance of natural justice is itself a prejudice to any person who has been denied justice depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The principle of procedural fairness is rooted in the principles of the rule of law and good governance. In Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, this Court held that the requirement of Page No.# 5/7 procedural fairness "holds an inherent value in itself". It was further observed: (SCC p. 447, para 45) "45. Inherent value in fair procedure: Fair procedure is not only a means to the end of achieving a fair outcome but is an end in itself. Fair procedure induces equality in the proceedings. The proceedings "seem" to be and are seen to be fair." 10. The learned Government Advocate, Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, has fairly submitted that the dispute in the present writ petition pertains to the petitioner and the respondent nos. 4 to 6 and, therefore, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 have nothing to submit. 11. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has also perused the pleadings as well as the enclosures in the writ petition. 12. A perusal of the Allotment Order dated 23.11.2022 shows that the petitioner had been allotted the Parking Area of the Ground Floor and 1st Floor of New Market, Flyover, Dimapur for parking purpose and the terms and conditions therein stipulated that the allotee had to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) as allotment fee and thereafter, to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand). One of the terms and conditions is that if the allotee fails to deposit his/her rent for 3 (three) months, then it would lead to cancellation of the allotment with or without notice. The most pertinent condition is that the allotment is not transferable and it could be cancelled only when the said area is required by the Dimapur Municipal Council for any other purpose or for developmental works, rather than the purpose for which allotment has been given. 13. It is seen that the petitioner has duly deposited the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) before the Dimapur Municipal Council/ Page No.# 6/7 respondent no. 4. It is also seen that the petitioner has been paying the monthly rent of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) regularly without fail. This Court has also perused the impugned Cancellation Order dated 12.08.2025 wherein the respondent no. 4 has stated that the said cancellation has been necessitated due to administrative reasons and in view of the requirement to ensure proper regulation of public utility of municipal assets. It is also noted that before passing of the impugned Cancellation Order dated 12.08.2025, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard and no notice was issued to her. 14. On perusal of the impugned Parking permit dated 19.08.2025 issued to the respondent nos. 5 and 6, it is noted that the respondent nos. 5 and 6 have been allotted the same space which was allotted to the petitioner and for the same purpose, i.e., for Parking Area. It cannot be said that the said allotment of Parking Permit to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 was for administrative reasons and it also cannot be said that it was required by the Dimapur Municipal Council for any other purpose or for developmental works. As it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Organisation for Railway Electrification (supra), the non- observance of natural justice is a prejudice to any person who has been denied justice and the objective of principle of natural justice is to ensure that every person whose rights are going to be affected by the proposed action gets a fair hearing. 15. In the present case, this Court is of the view that the principles of natural justice has not been observed by the respondent no. 4 and moreover, the respondent no. 4 has violated the terms and conditions of the Allotment Order dated 23.11.2022, in respect of the condition no. 8. Page No.# 7/7 Therefore, the impugned orders dated 12.08.2025 and 19.08.2025 cannot stand the test of law, and they are accordingly quashed and set aside. 16. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant