Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4314/2026 of PAPORI BHUYAN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. on 13 August 2026
GAHC010170732026 2026:GAU-AS:11603 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4314/2026 PAPORI BHUYAN WIFE OF SRI ARUN BHUYAN, RESIDENT OF HATIGAON SIJUBARI, P.O. P.S. HATIGAON, GUWAHATI - 781038, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. VERSUS THE
GAHC010170732026
2026:GAU-AS:11603
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4314/2026
PAPORI BHUYAN
WIFE OF SRI ARUN BHUYAN, RESIDENT OF HATIGAON SIJUBARI, P.O. P.S.
HATIGAON, GUWAHATI - 781038, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOUSING URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 781006
2:THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI -781006.
3:THE CHAIRMAN BARPETA MUNICIPAL BOARD
P.O. AND P.S. BARPETA
DISTRICT - BARPETA
ASSAM. PIN 781301
4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER BARPETA MUNICIPAL BOARD
P.O. AND P.S. BARPETA
DISTRICT - BARPETA
ASSAM. PIN 781301
5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
BARPETA P.O. AND P.S. BARPETA
DISTRICT - BARPETA
ASSAM. PIN - 78130
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Rahman, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Gogoi, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
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 : 14.08.2026
Heard Mr. S. Rahman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions upon the Respondent Authorities not to disturb the petitioner in running the daily fish market on her private land and also to issue the necessary license or NOC for running the said market.
3. This Court has duly perused the materials on record and from the materials on record, is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for being entertained. It is also seen that there is no representation submitted by the petitioner.
4. Under such circumstances, when there is no demand for justice, the question of issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus also does not arise.
5. Considering the above, this Court is therefore not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, for which the writ petition stands dismissed.
6. Before parting with the record, this Court, however, observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from submitting a representation to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, if so advised and in the circumstance, such representation is submitted, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall duly consider the same.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant