The authority of the Executive Officer to make the allotment was not supported by the provisions of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. P. Hazarika, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deori, the learned junior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 and Mr. M. Chetia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 as well as Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 7.

2. The dispute in the instant case is in respect to an order passed by the respondent No. 6 dated 26.12.2014 whereby the respondent No. 6 decided to allot one part of room No. 3 situated at New Market at Dhakuakhana Town Committee to the petitioner and the other part of the said room to the respondent No. 7 in respect of which the respondent N o. 7 admittedly is in possession.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the Executive Officer, Dhakuakhana Town Committee, i.e., the respondent No. 6 herein did not have the power and authority to allot the room to the respondent No. 7 inasmuch as at that relevant point of time though there was no Dhakuakhana Town Committee and an Executive Officer was in-charge of the Dhakuakhana Town Committee but as no power specifically has been given to him in terms with section 299(b) and as such the said Executive Officer, i.e., the respondent No. 6 could not have decided or allot a part of the room No. 3. He further submits that in terms with section 148 read with sections 334 and 335 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 (‘the Act of 1956’) the power could have been exercised by the Board or the Town Committee as the case may be. He further submits that in respect to the instant area wherein the commercial room is situated, it is under the Dhakuakhana Town Committee which has been notified under section 334 of the Act of 1956.

4. On the other hand, Mr. B. Deori, learned Junior Government advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 submits that the said respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it was categorically stated that the Executive Officer of the said Town Committee has the authority' to allot the said room to both the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 7.

5. Mr. Chetia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 submits that the respondent No. 5 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the power of allotment of the shop, imposition by levying rent, toll and fees are vested with the Municipal Board and the order dated 26.12.2014 was passed by the respondent No. 6 behind the back of the Dhakuakhana Town Committee. It has been submitted that in view of the existence of the dispute pursuant to the order dated 26.12.2014, the respondent No. 5 is being deprived from the legitimate rent of the aforesaid room.

6. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 7 submits that the respondent No. 7 has been in possession of the part of the Room No. 3 on the basis of an agreement dated 20.7.2006 between the respondent No. 7 and. the petitioner's father and. the Dhakuakhana Town Committee had also issued a Trade License in favour of the respondent No. 7 to run his business from a part of the Room No. 3 of the Dhakuakhana New Market in the name and style of P.K. Commercial and Papers House. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 7 it has been categorically stated that the Dhakuakhana Town Committee rightly allotted one part of the room No. 3 of the New Market, Dhakuakhana wherefrom the respondent No. 7 is running his business since 2006 in the name of respondent No. 7 instead of allotting the whole room in the house of the petitioner.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

8. The issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the Executive Officer, Dhakuakhana Town Committee, i.e., the respondent No. 6 had the authority to pass the order dated 26.12.2014 whereby he had allotted a part of room No. 3 to the respondent No. 7. Section 148 of the Act of 1956 stipulates the powers of the Boa