TALIMUL RAHMAN AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.
LAWS(GAU)-2018-4-83
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on April 05,2018

Talimul Rahman And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM And ORS. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.K.GOSWAMI,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. A.I. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.7867/2016 and for the respondent Nos.5 to 8 in WP(C) No.6731/2016. Also heard Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.6731/2016, who is the respondent No.6 in WP(C) No.7867/2016. I have also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 in WP (C) No.7867/2016 and for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP(C) No.6731/2016, Mr. P.S. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in WP(C) No.7867/2016 and for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in WP(C) No.3731/2016.
(2.) The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in WP(C) No.7867/2016 are brothers and the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the wife and daughter, respectively, of petitioner No.2. Their case is that there was a vacant space in the New Market under Dhubri Municipal Board (for short, "Board") and coming to know that with a view to raise fund, the Board decided to allot the said vacant space to extend the New Market area, the petitioners submitted applications on 28.09.2015 requesting the Board to allot the vacant space to them. Further case of the petitioners is that the Board had entrusted the Ward Commissioners of Ward Nos. 5 and 7 to examine feasibility of allotment of the stalls and to submit a report and accordingly, a report was submitted by them, which was considered in the meeting of the Board on 06.02.2016 and vide resolution No. 4 (C), the Board had resolved to allot vacant space for stalls. Accordingly, stall Nos.B(III)/11, B(III)/12, B(III)/13 and B(III)/14 were allotted to the petitioner Nos.3, 4, 2 and 1, respectively, by an office order dated 21.4.16. After taking physical possession, the petitioners had filed an application on 28.10.2016 before the Board requesting them to provide security for the purpose of construction of stalls and thereafter, a foundation stone was laid on 29.10.16. However, on 10.11.16, the respondent No.4 instructed the petitioners to stop construction in view of a writ petition filed by the present respondent No.6 in WP (C) No.6731/2016 and accordingly, they had stopped construction of the works.
(3.) In WP(C) No.6731/2016, the case projected by the petitioner is that pursuant to a tender notice dated 13.03.2015, New Market was settled with him by an order dated 31.03.2015 for a period of 1(one) year w.e.f. 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 and thereafter, the said period was extended up to 31.03.2017 at an enhanced rate of 5%. During pendency of the writ petition, the term was again extended up to 31.03.2018 by order dated 01.04.2017. It is pleaded in the petition that the vacant space in the Fish Market area of New Market is a part of the lease granted to the petitioner, which was allotted to the respondent Nos.5 to 8 of WP(C) No.6731/2016 and in the said area, Fish Traders are doing their business. It is also pleaded that while allotting the space to the respondent Nos.5 to 8 in WP(C) No.6731/2016, no Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued proposing to make any allotment and that the same has been allotted in a most illegal and arbitrary manner to the members of only one family.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.