JUDGMENT :

1. All these writ petitions are with a similar grievance pertaining to the allotment of rooms in the markets under the GMC, mainly the Fancy Bazar markets were taken up analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. Before going to the issue(s) involved, it would be convenient if the facts of the cases are stated in brief.

3. The petitioner no. 1 in all these petitions are different Market Committees under the Gauhati Municipal Corporation. In 1989, the entire market in Fancy Bazar was gutted by fire and thereafter, a decision was taken to construct a multi-storied building and to accommodate the shopkeepers and in this direction, the petitioners claim that in spite of repeated orders of this Court since the year 2000, the building could not be completed. Ultimately, after completion of the construction in the year 2004, the rooms were allotted; however, the rent was charged at Rs.10/-per sq. ft. which according to the petitioner was inconsistent with the rent fixed by this Court as per an Expert Committee Report. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 2020, the rent was again enhanced to Rs.38/-per sq. ft. The said enhancement was the subject matter of challenge in WP(C)/5481/2020 in which a direction was issued on 07.01.2021 for submission and consideration of a representation by the GMC. Accordingly, on 29.01.2021 a representation was submitted which according to the petitioners was ignored and again notice was issued to pay the enhance rate. The petitioners had again filed another writ petition being WP(C)/6380/2021 which was disposed of on 15.12.2021 directing consideration and disposal of the representation dated 29.01.2021.

4. The petitioners allege that thereafter an order dated 18.12.2021 has been passed by the Commissioner, GMC whereby the enhancement of the rates were justified and the prayer to reconsider was rejected. The petitioners contend that while maintaining the enhanced rates, the GMC could not perform their reciprocal duties namely, in providing required facilities. The petitioners further allege that the GMC has been allowing unauthorized market / vendors on the roads approaching the market thereby making the GMC market inaccessible to the customers. It is this action of the GMC which is the subject matter of challenge. It is also the case of the petitioners that on 09.03.2022 the shops of the petitioners were locked for which the petitioners had to institute WP(C)/702/2022 and pursuant to an interim order of this Court, the locks were opened by the GMC Authorities.

5. The prayers made in these writ petitions are broadly to set aside the rejection order dated 18.12.2021 and also to interfere with the action of enhancing the rent.

6. I have heard Shri MK Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri MJ Baruah, learned counsel for petitioners. I have also heard Shri D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam along with Shri S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GMC for all the respondents.

7. Shri Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners fall in a different class altogether inasmuch as, they are fire affected victims who had suffered huge loss due to the fire in which their business had also come to a halt which continued for an unreasonably long period of time. Under such circumstances, enhancing the rates from Rs.10/-per sq. ft. to Rs.38/-per sq. ft. (ground floor) and from Rs.7/-per sq. ft. to Rs.30/-per sq. ft. (mezzanine floor) was wholly unreasonable. It is further submitted that due to the inaction of the GMC Authorities in removing the unauthorized shops surrounding the GMC market, it was inaccessible for the customers to come to the shops of the petitioners for which in spite of the shops being opened, the petitioners were suffering loss in the business. It is accordingly submitted that appropriate action be taken both to reduce the enhanced rents and to take appropriate action to remove