IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Anowaruddin Wakf Estate And Ors – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 4640 of 2024
Decided on : 03-10-2024
Highhandedness - Removal of Kiosk - Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 - Section 337 - The court emphasized that actions taken by statutory authorities must adhere to legal provisions, including the necessity of notice and opportunity for hearing before removal of structures, reinforcing the rule of law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners alleged unlawful removal of their kiosk/shop by municipal authorities without notice, based on verbal instructions regarding a lack of trade license and a complaint from a third party.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the removal was executed without proper legal authority, as no notice was issued, and actions were based solely on verbal instructions, violating the principles of the rule of law.
Issues: Whether the removal of the kiosk/shop by the municipal authorities was lawful given the lack of notice and proper legal procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: Statutory authorities must act within the bounds of law, requiring notice and an opportunity for hearing before taking enforcement actions.
Result: The court ordered the immediate restoration of the kiosk/shop and disapproved the actions of the municipal authorities.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A.I. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners complaining about the highhanded action on the part of the Respondent authorities in removing the kiosk/shop of the petitioners including the goods therein at the middle of the night of 12.07.2024 from the Petitioner No.1’s premises, that too, without issuance of any notice.
3. The brief facts leading to the dispute are narrated briefly infra. It is the case of the petitioners herein that a plot of land admeasuring 3 bighas 3 kathas and 9.93 lechas covered by Dag Nos.1498, 1500, 1502, 1503, 1653, 1654 and 1655 of KP No.585 under Mouza-Ulubari, Village-Ulubari in the district of Kamrup (Metro), Assam is a part of Anowaruddin Wakf Estate, i.e. the Petitioner No.1. The said plot of land is adjacent to the GS Road at Bhangagarh. In the said plot of land, the Petitioner No.2, who is the Mutawalli of the Petitioner No.1 had leased out a kiosk/shop to the Petitioner No.3 in order to allow him to open a shop to carry out food and beverage business. In that regard, a tenancy agreement was also entered into between the Petitioner No.2 for an on behalf of the Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.3. To the utter shock and surprise of the petitioners, at around 11:30 PM on 12.07.2024, without any notice whatsoever, some persons forcefully removed the kiosk/shop of the petitioners. The said acts were committed with the help of a hydraulic crane bearing registration No.AS01-DS-8321 and a Dumper Truck bearing registration No.AS01-QC-9459. On the basis thereof, an FIR was filed at Bhangagarh Police Station which was registered and numbered as Bhangagarh P.S. Non FIR Case No.21/2024. Subsequently, the petitioners could come to learn on further enquiries and a communication dated 17.08.2024 being issued by the Collector of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation that the said action was taken upon verbal instructions of one Additional Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs on the ground that during field inspection, no trade licence was found. The contents of the said communication dated 17.08.2024 being relevant is reproduced herein under:-
| “To, Syed Javed Kaisar, Mutawalli, Anowaruddin Wakf Estate. Anowarpur, GMCH Road, Guwahati. Sub: Reply to your letter regarding illegal encroachment by personnel impersonating GMC authority. Sir, With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to inform you that the movable shop in question was removed by Enforcement Branch, GMC as per verbal instruction of the Additional Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, DoHUA. During the field inspection no valid Trade License was found and so the movable shop was removed by the Enforcement Branch, GMC and the same is currently kept at Div-V ground of GMC. This is for favour of your kind information. | |
|
| Yours Faithfully, Collector, Guwahati Municipal Corporation Guwahati.” |
4. It is under such circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court alleging the high handedness on the part of the GMC authorities, that too on the basis of verbal instructions being issued by an official of the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs. In addition to that, the petitioners alleged that such action without notice to the petitioners goes against the Rule of law.
5. This Court vide an order dated 13.09.2024 issued notice and directed the Respondent authorities to bring on record their stand by filing the affidavit. In accordance thereto, an affidavit was filed on 25.09.2024 by the Joint Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation. A perusal of the contents of the said affidavit shows that the respondents had tried to improve on the grounds set out in the communication dated 17.08.2024 in as much as certain add
Aligarh Muslim University & Others vs. Mansoor Ali Khan
Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji
Mohinder Singh Gill & Another vs. Chief Election Commission of India, New Delhi & Others
Statutory authorities cannot act on verbal instructions and must follow due process, including issuing notice before enforcement actions.
A decision by an authority impugned in a writ petition cannot be sustained if it fails to follow the directions in an earlier writ petition passed by a competent court.
The court directed the GMC to verify vendor permissions and evict unauthorized vendors from the market area, ensuring compliance with municipal regulations.
Unauthorized structures on public streets removable without notice; tax payments, electricity bills do not legitimize or create equity; clean hands doctrine bars relief to encroachers abusing process....
The court reaffirmed the principle that unauthorized constructions threaten public safety, necessitating swift enforcement of demolition orders under local municipal law.
Section 210 (1) (a) empowers the Commissioner to prescribe a street line for the first time without the prior approval of the Standing Committee (as has been done in the present case). It is only und....
The respondent authority is the lawful owner of the Final Plot No. 49 and therefore, unauthorized constructions of tin sheet sheds with iron angles and guarders are without any authority of Rules and....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.