GUWAHATI, India, March 1 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Jan. 29:

1. The instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayer:

"It is prayed that Your Lordship may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue a Rule, calling the Respondents to show cause as to why the impugned select list for Bazar rooms at Piyoli Phukan Market under Lanka Municipal Board (Annexure- 11, 12 & 13) should not be set aside and quashed and fresh Notice be issued for allotment of Bazar rooms in 1st and 2nd floor at Piyoli Phukan Market under Lanka Municipal Board and after hearing the parties, perusal of records make the Rule absolute and/or pass such order or orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper.

AND

During pendency of the writ petition Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the Respondents to stay the Select List of Bazar rooms in 1st and 2nd floor at Piyoli Phukan Market under Lanka Municipal Board (Annexure-11, 12 & 13)."

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioners, who are 8 in nos., had participated in the allotment process of certain rooms under the Lanka Municipal Board, Lanka which was advertised on 26.02.2019. The rooms are in the Piyoli Phukan Market in the first and second floors in the Lanka Town. The petitioners claim to have filed their applications with all relevant documents and fulfilling the criteria. However, the settlements were not done with the petitioners and were done with the private respondents.

3. I have heard Shri A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the official respondents.

4. As regards the private respondents, there is a detailed order passed by the learned Lawazima Court dated 22.01.2026, whereby few of the private respondents have been served and there is no definite service report with respect to some of the private respondents. The private respondents however have chosen not to appear and contest this proceeding. Be that as it may, in view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, the presence of the private respondents may not be necessary.

5. Shri Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had submitted their applications pursuant to the notice dated 26.02.2019 in time and by fulfilling all the requirements. However, the cases of the petitioners were not considered in the proper perspective and on the other hand, the settlement of the rooms were given illegally to the private respondents. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the documents obtained under the Right to Information Act and has attempted to demonstrate that the documents of the private respondents were not in order, more particularly the accompanying affidavits with the application for such allotment. He accordingly submits that necessary interference be made by this Court in the interest of justice.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=U%2BbhtlrLe2adAHN8Tz%2F1d2Aji2ccm83Pj1rx0nJOqs80JXg0xdS1szAbrFLUr4a7&caseno=WP(C)/3213/2020&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010108322020&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.