Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2438/2026 of SHAHIN EKBAL Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS on 8 October 2026
GAHC010086502026 2026:GAU-AS:15295 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2438/2026 SHAHIN EKBAL S/O ENTAZ ALI AHMED, VILLAGE AND P.O. MANDIA, P.S. BAGHBAR, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM- 781308 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
GAHC010086502026
2026:GAU-AS:15295
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2438/2026
SHAHIN EKBAL
S/O ENTAZ ALI AHMED, VILLAGE AND P.O. MANDIA, P.S. BAGHBAR, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM- 781308
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06
2:THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
JURIPAR
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI- 781037
3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
BARPETA ZILLA PARISHAD
BARPETA
ASSAM - 781031
4:THE DISTRICT COMMSSIONER
BARPETA
ASSAM- 781301
5:THE SECRETARY
MANDIA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT
MANDIA
BARPETA
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD S HOQUE, MR. M DEKA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, P AND R.D.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 09.10.2026 Heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department.
2. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that a fresh tender has been floated for settlement of the market and therefore, this writ petition, where the prayers were for settling market in favour of the petitioner or for directing the respondents to act in compliance with the communication dated 10.03.2026 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, does not survive for adjudication.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a deliberate attempt to frustrate the writ petition.
4. We have noticed that the term for the settlement of the market was for the year 2025-26, which has now long elapsed.
5. With the issuance of the new tender process, no adjudication can be made on the basis of the statements made in the writ petition, which do not point any mala fide intentions of any of the officials, neither the concerned officials made parties by name, by which they could have responded to the allegations been sought to be leveled today.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed as it does not require any further adjudication.
7. This will not debar the petitioner from assailing or ventilating their grievances in any manner known to law.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant