Court permits construction while ensuring genuine shopkeepers are accommodated in new facilities, emphasizing the need for legitimate proof of rights.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. JI Borbhuiya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions. I have also heard Mr. D Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam, who appears on behalf of the State of Assam as well as the District Administration and Mr. BC Muchahary, the learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the BTC as well as Sri Mahamaya Dham Committee, Bogoribari, Parbatjhora, Kokrajhar which is a Committee constituted by the BTC.

2. 101 writ petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petitions seeking protection from forceful eviction by the respondents. The materials on record show that the North East Council had allotted certain funds to the Assam Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (for short,’ the ATDC’) for creation of facilities for tourists at Maa Mahamaya Dham, Bogoribari, Assam. A company namely, M/s. SBF Commercial Pvt. Ltd was awarded the construction work with a contract value of Rs.11,35,90,000/- for creation of the facilities for tourist at Mahamaya Temple Dham. The period of completion as mentioned in the work order dated 20.11.2023 was 18(eighteen) months. The scope of the work included construction of a Guest House (G+1 storey building); construction of a rest house (G+1 storey building); market single storey building; and site development work including development of the exiting pond; external electrification work and furniture and fixtures as per specification.

3. The petitioners herein in both the writ petitions claim that they are shopkeepers carrying out the business of selling items required for puja and other ancillary items within the vicinity of the Mahamaya Temple at Dhubri. They claim that they are mostly carrying on their business by setting up their shops below the staircase of the Mahamaya Dham Temple as was permitted by the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee as far back as on 06.04.1973.

4. The grievance for which the petitioners have approached this Court is that in view of the steps being taken for creation of facilities for tourist at Mahamaya Temple Dhubri they would lose their livelihood though they were permitted by the Mahamaya Mandir Managing Committee to establish their shops below the staircase.

5. When the first of the writ petitions were filed, i.e. WP(C)No.6437/2024, on 04.12.2024, this Court passed an order of status-quo with regard to the demolition carried out till the next date. However, subsequently, by an order dated 24.01.2025, this Court, while issuing notice observed that the status-quo order so passed on 04.12.2024 shall remain limited to the 10(ten) writ petitioners in WP(C)No.6437/2024 till the next date of hearing. The interim orders, as it appears from the materials on record, have been continued thereafter in WP(C) No.6437/2024.

6. It is very pertinent to take note of that taking into account that the order passed on 24.01.2025 was limited to those 10 petitioners, who are the writ petitioners in WP(C)No.6437/2024, 91 petitioners joined together to file the second writ petition on 14.02.2025, which was registered and numbered as WP(C)No.953/2025.

7. The record reveals that in pursuance to the filing of the said writ petition vide an order dated 05.04.2025, this Court issued notice in WP(C)No.953/2025 and passed an interim order that there shall not be any demolition of shops of the petitioners and/or eviction process till the next returnable date. The interim orders so passed in both the writ petitions have been extended from time to time.

8. It is very pertinent to take note of an order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 13.06.