Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2591/2025 of SMTI GITUMONI BHATTACHARJEE Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. on 16 June 2026
GAHC010082212025 2026:GAU-AS:8742 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2591/2025 SMTI GITUMONI BHATTACHARJEE D/O BIMALENDU BHATTACHARJEE, R/O HOUSE NO. 16, 2ND FLOOR, DHARMA SARMA PATH, BIRUBARI, P.O.- GOPINATH NAGAR, P.S.-
GAHC010082212025
2026:GAU-AS:8742
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2591/2025
SMTI GITUMONI BHATTACHARJEE
D/O BIMALENDU BHATTACHARJEE, R/O HOUSE NO. 16, 2ND FLOOR, DHARMA SARMA PATH, BIRUBARI, P.O.- GOPINATH NAGAR, P.S.- PALTANBAZAR, GUWAHATI-16, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006
2:THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-781005
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
3:THE SECRETARY
GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-781005
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
4:PRADIP RANGSHA
S/O LATE PRABIN RANGSHA
R/O HOUSE NO. 16
DHARMA SARMA PATH
BIRUBARI
P.O.- GOPINATH NAGAR
P.S.- PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-16
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
5:BINKY RANSHA YEM
S/O SRI JAMES YEM
R/O HOUSE NO. 9A
JOYANAGAR
JOYA PATH
BIRUBARI
GOPINATH NAGAR
GUWAHATI-781016
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSA
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Saikia, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Sarma, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate Mr. S. Bora, Standing Counsel 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 : 17.06.2026
Heard Mr. S. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. H. Sarma, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. Mr. S. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that against the order dated 27.01.2025, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 71 of the Guwahati
Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1985 (for short, "the Act of 1985").
3. Mr. S. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the petitioner is now relegated to the Appellate Authority, the appeal would be time barred and, as such, the petitioner may not be able to obtain substantial relief before the appellate forum.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, however, submitted that in the event an appeal is filed, the said respondents would not contest on the question of delay.
5. Considering the above, as certain disputed questions of fact are required to be adjudicated, this Court is of the opinion that the Appellate Authority under Section 71 of the Act of 1985 would be best suited to decide the issues arising out of the order dated 27.01.2025.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed.
7. However, it is observed that the non-entertainment of the instant writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from availing the remedy available under Section 71 of the Act of
1985 before the Appellate Authority.
8. It is further observed that if the petitioner files an appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of the present order, the same shall be decided by the Appellate Authority on merits without insisting upon the question of limitation.
9. Further to that, this Court takes note of that if the interim order passed in the present proceedings is not continued for a period of 30 days so as to enable the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy, the entire proceedings would become infructuous.
10. Accordingly, this Court directs that the interim order dated 16.05.2025 passed in the present proceedings shall continue to remain in operation for a period of 30 days from today. Thereupon, it shall be absolutely within the domain of the Appellate Authority to decide as to whether there is a requirement of passing any stay order or not.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant