Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Abdul Mozid Son of Late Rostom Ali – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam Represented By The Additional Chief Secretary To The Government Of Assam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to prior communications and orders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. hearing of arguments from both parties. (Para 3) |
| 3. misinterpretation of previous court directions. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. need for intervention on misconstrued orders. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. final order for quashing and directions. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. M. Chetia, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 7 and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 8.
2. The petitioners herein have approached this Court challenging the communication dated 10.12.2025 issued by the respondent No. 5, the order dated 11.12.2025 issued by the respondent No. 2 and also the delay in complying with the directions passed by this Court in the judgment and order dated 24.09.2025 in WP(C) No. 237/2025 and 2 (two) other writ petitions.
3. This Court has duly heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Mr. S Dutta
Authorities must adhere to judicial directives, and misinterpretation leading to wrongful rejections of permissions can result in court intervention, emphasizing administrative accountability.
A market operator must comply with the amended legal requirements of the Assam Panchayat Act and the Assam Cattle Preservation Act to conduct business lawfully.
Section 105 of Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 clearly provides that settlement of a market (hat) shall not exceed one Panchayat Financial Year and that settlement has to be made by inviting tenderers.
The discretionary nature of the approval for lease extension and the importance of maintaining transparency and fairness in distribution of State largesse.
The court upheld the cancellation of the tender process while rejecting extensions to existing lessees, emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory provisions governing Panchayat settlements.
The settlement granted to the petitioner association could not be cancelled unless found to have been contrary to the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
