Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010255792025 2026:GAU-AS:3723 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6985/2025 SYED AMZAD ALI AND 2 ORS S/O LATE SYED AHMED ALI, 2: JAFAR ALI S/O LATE AAIDAR ALI 3: GANANANDA BARMAN S/O LATE RAMANANDA BARMAN ALL R/O ANUPAM NAGAR HATIGAON GUWAHATI 78103 VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, GUWAHATI DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER PANBAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 3:ASSTT. TOWN PLANNER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ASSAM PANBAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 Page No.# 2/3 4:KHALILUR RAHMAN S/O LATE HAZARAT ALI R/O ANUPAM NAGAR HATIGAON GUWAHATI 78103 Advocate for the applicant(s): Mr. RJ Das Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. P Nayak Addl. Advocate General, Assam Mr. S Adhyapak for respondent No.4. B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 13.03.2026 Heard Mr. RJ Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. P Nayak, the learned Addl. AG, Assam and Mr. S Adhyapak the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.4. 2. The petitioners herein have approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to act expeditiously on the petitioners’ representation dated 04.09.2025 in order to halt the unauthorized construction of the mutli-storey RCC building undertaken by the respondent No.4. 3. Mr. P Nayak, the learned Addl. AG, Assam has placed before this Court a Page No.# 3/3 set of instructions, which are kept on record and marked with the letter ‘X’. 4. From a perusal of the said instructions, it is seen that the GMC has initiated the inquiry of the building and issued a DA notice dated 13.02.2025. The respondent No.4 thereupon had submitted a reply dated 15.02.2025 with copies of the NOC, PP and approved Plan. It was also mentioned that following the procedure, the site was also inspected by the concerned ZE and Inspection Report was also submitted. 5. Mr. P Nayak, the learned Addl.AG, Assam further submitted that upon carrying out the enquiry, it was found that the respondent No.4 had constructed the building in accordance with the NOC, PP as well as the approved plan. 6. Taking into account the above, the relief which has been sought for by the petitioner herein cannot be granted and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. 7. Be that as it may, if the petitioner herein is in a position to show any violation of the building bye-laws, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court again. JUDGE Comparing Assistant