WP(C)/4481/2024 of MD. AINUL HOQUE Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS on 29 November 2024

GAHC010239582024

2024:GAU-AS:11948

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/5993/2024

FARIDA KHANOM D/O- AHMED KHAN, R/O- BORBORI, P.O- AMD P.S- LAHARIGHAT, PIN-782127, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, ASSAM, GUWAHATI- 781006

2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MORIGAON ASSAM

3:THE MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER P.O. AND P.S. MORIGAON DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782105

MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD P.O. AND P.S. MORIGAON DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782105

5:THE MOIRABARI ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER P.O. MOIRABARI P.S. MORIGAON DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78212

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K MUNIR, MR. A. GAYAN

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., GA, ASSAM

Linked Case : WP(C)/5601/2024MD. MARUF SADDAM HUSSAINSON OF TAMIR UDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- TATIKOTA POST-OFFICE- MOIRABARI POLICE STATION- MOIRABARI DISTRICT- MORIGAON (ASSAM)

VERSUSTHE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORSREPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

2:THE COMMISSIONERPANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ASSAM JURIPAR PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37 ASSAM 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONERMORIGAON MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782105

4:ZILLA PARISHAD

MORIGAON REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

5:MOIRABARI ANCHALIK PANCHAYATREPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER

6:SELIM CHOUDHURYS/O- MUJJAMEL HUSSAIN R/O- MOIRABARI P.O. AND P.S. MOIRABARI DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782126 ------------ Advocate for : MR S BORTHAKURAdvocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

GAUTOM MEDHIS/O DHANESWAR MEDHI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HAHCHARA PO BHURBANDHA PS MORIGAON DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 782104

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORSREPRESENTED bY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM 781006

2:THE MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHADREPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PO AND PS MORIGAON DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 782105

3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD PO AND PS MORIGAON DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 782105

4:THE BHURBANDHA ANCHALIK PANCHAYATREP. BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER PO BHURBANDHA PS AND DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 78205

5:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER

BHURBANDHA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT PO BHURBANDHA PS AND DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 782104

6:SACHIN KUMAR BORAS/O PHULENDRA BORA

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAKABAHI PO KUMURAGURI PS MORIGAON DIST MORIGAON ASAM 782104

------------

Advocate for : MR. M K HUSSAINAdvocate for : SC P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

Linked Case : WP(C)/4311/2024APURBA KR NATHS/O LTAE BHUBAN CH. NATH

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HABIBARANGABARI PO HABIBARANGABARI PS MIKIRBHETA DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 782106

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORSREPRESENTED Y THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM 781006

2:THE MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PO AND PS MORIGAON DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 782105 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERMORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD PO AND PS MORIGAON DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 782105 4:THE BHURBANDHA ANCHALIK PANCHAYATREP. BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER PO BHURBANDHA PS AND DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 78205 5:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERBHURBANDHA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT PO BHURBANDHA PS AND DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 782104 6:SUMANTA KUMAR NATHS/O LATE KHAGEN CH. NATH RESIDENT OF PARASUTANGUNI PO HABIBARANGABARI PS MIKIRBHETA DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 782106 ------------ Advocate for : MR. M K HUSSAINAdvocate for : SC P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

RAJ HUSSAINS/O- LATE ALTAF HUSSAIN R/O- VILL.- PAIKAN PART-II P.O. AND P.S. KRISHNAI DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783126.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORSREPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

2:THE COMMISSIONER

PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ASSAM JURIPAR PANJABARI GHY-37.

3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOALPARADIST. GOALPARA ASSAM 4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERGOALPARA ZILLA PARISHAD GOALPARA ASSAM

5:KRISHNAI ANCHALIK PANCHAYATREPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER KRISHNAI ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT P.O. AND P.S. KRISHNAI DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783126. ------------ Advocate for : MR H R A CHOUDHURYAdvocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

BULBUL ISLAMSON OF IMAN ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MOIRABARI

P.O.- MOIRABARI P.S.- MOIRABARI DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782126

VERSUSTHE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORSREPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR ASSAM GUWAHATI- 7810062:THE MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHADREPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER P.O. AND P.S. MORIGAON DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782005 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERMORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD P.O. AND P.S. MORIGAON DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782005 4:THE MOIRABARI ANCHALIK PANCHAYATREPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER P.O. MOIRABARI P.S. MORIGAON DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782126 5:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERMOIRABARI ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT P.O. MOIRABARI P.S. MORIGAON DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782126 6:TASLIM MUKTARSON OF LATE ABUL BASHAR MUKTAR

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- HATIMURIA P.O. MOIRABARI P.S. MOIRABARI DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782126 ------------ Advocate for : MR. A M AHMEDAdvocate for : SC P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

Linked Case : WP(C)/3632/2024MD. ALIM UDDINSON OF LATE RAMIJ UDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KUPOTIMARI POST-OFFICE- BHURAGAON POLICE-STATION- BHURAGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON (ASSAM)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORSREPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT2:THE COMMISSIONERPANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ASSAM JURIPAR PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37 ASSAM 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONERMORIGAON MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782105 4:ZILLA PARISHADMORIGAON REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

5:LAHARIGHAT ANCHALIK PANCHAYATREPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER

------------

Advocate for : MR S BORTHAKURAdvocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

SHAFIKUL ISLAMS/O- LATE ABDUL KADDUS

VILLAGE- BANIARAPARA

P.S- BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781314

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORSREPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR ASSAM GUWAHATI-7810062:THE COMMISSIONERPANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ASSAM JURIPAR PANJABARI GUWAHATI-781037 ASSAM

3:THE BARPETA ZILLA PARISHADREP. BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301

4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BARPETA ZILLA PARISHAD BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 5:THE BARPETA ANCHALIK PANCHAYATREP. BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER DIST- BARPETA ASSAM

Arguments

6:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERBARPETA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT P.S AND DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 7:KHANDAKAR ABDUL JALILS/O- KHANDAKAR ABUL HUSSAINVILLAGE-BANIARAPARA P.S- BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781314 ------------ Advocate for : MR. A M AHMEDAdvocate for : SC P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

Linked Case : WP(C)/4481/2024MD. AINUL HOQUES/O MOFIZ UDDINR/O VILL- ROWMARI P.O. ROWMARI P.S. RUPAHIHAT DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782125

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORSREPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAMPANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR ASSAM GUWAHATI-7810062:THE NAGAON ZILLA PARISHADREPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER P.O. AND P.S. NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782001 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

NAGAON ZILLA PARISHADP.O. AND P.S. NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001

4:THE RUPAHIHAT ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT

REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER P.O. RUPAHIHATP.S. NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782125

5:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER

RUPAHIHAT ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT PO. RUPAHIHAT P.S. NAGAONDIST. NAGAON ASSAMPIN-782125

6:UTTAM KONWARS/O BHUGESWAR KONWAR R/O VILL- UKHAHAPAR

P.O. GOTONGAP.S. RUPAHIHAT DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782125 ------------ Advocate for : MR. M K HUSSAINAdvocate for : SC P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

MD. ANSER ALIS/O- LATE MOMIN ALI VILL. AND P.O. KADANG P.S. KALGACHIA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORSREPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06.

2:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERBARPETA ZILLA PARISHAD BARPETA AND IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT MANDIA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT MANDIA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM 3:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERMANDIA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT MANDIA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM 4:MONCHER ALIS/O- LATE MAMIN ALI VILL. AND P.O. KADONG P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA

ASSAM

------------ Advocate for : MR. R ALIAdvocate for : SC P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

Linked Case : WP(C)/5858/2024ABDUL JALILSON OF LATE HARAN RASHID

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHAURIABHITHA

P.S.- CHHAYGAON

DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM. PIN- 781136.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORSREPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006.2:THE KAMRUP ZILLA PARISHADAMINGAON REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AMINGAON DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM

PIN- 781331. 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KAMRUP ZILLA PARISHADAMINGAON DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM

PIN- 781331.

4:THE GOROIMARI ANCHALIK PANCHAYATREPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERP.O.- GOROIMARI P.S- CHHAYGAONDISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM. 5:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOROIMARI ANCHALIK PANCHAYATP.O. GOROIMARI P.S. CHHAYGAONDISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM. 6:MD. SAYEDUR RAHMANSON OF LATE SAGAR ALIVILLAGE- CHAMPUPARA GAONP.O.- CHAMPUPARAP.S.- CHHAYGAONDISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAMPIN- 781136. 7:MD. SURMAN ALISON OF LATE MUNNAF ALIVILLAGE- CHAMPUPARA GAON P.O.- CHAMPUPARAP.S.- CHHAYGAONDISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAMPIN- 781136. ------------ Advocate for : MR. A M AHMEDAdvocate for : SC

P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

PADMA KANTA HAZARIKA AND ANRS/O LATE LAKHI KANTA HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND PO SALAGURI PS DHING DIST NAGAON ASSAM

2: SRI MUKUL HUSSAINS/O LATE SAMAR ALI RESIDENT OF HAIDUBI PO BATAMARI DIST NAGAON ASSAM VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORSREPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 7810062:THE NAGAON ZILLA PARISHADREPRSENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PO AND DIST NAGAON ASSAM 782001

3:THE BATADRAVA ANCHALIK PANCHAYATREPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER PO DHING DIST NAGAON ASSAM 782122

------------

Advocate for : MR. D A KAIYUMAdvocate for : SC P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS

KADAM ALIS/O- LATE ABDUL MAZID

VILLAGE- MOURIGAONP.S- BAGHBAR DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781308

VERSUSTHE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORSREPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 7810062:THE COMMISSIONERPANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JURIPARPANJABARI GUWAHATI- 781037 3:THE BARPETA ZILLA PARISHADREPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BARPETA BARPETA PIN- 781301 ASSAM 4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERBARPETA ZILLA PARISHAD BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301 5:THE MANDIA ANCHALIK PANCHAYATREP. BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER DISTRICT- BARPETA (ASSAM) PIN- 781308. 6:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER MANDIA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT P.O.- MANDIA P.S.- BAGHBAR DISTRICT- BARPETA (ASSAM) PIN- 781308.

------------ Advocate for : P. GHOSHAdvocate for : SC P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

PUNYA KUMAR PATARS/O LATE DHARANI PATAR

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORBORI PO PUKARKATA PS BHURAGAON DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 782121

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORSREPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT. DISPUR GWUAHATI ASSAM 06

2:THE MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHADREP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PO AND PS AND DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 782105

3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD PO AND PS AND DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 782105

4:THE LAHARIGHAT ANCHALIK PANCHAYATREPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER PO LAHARIGHAT PS AND DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 782127

5:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER

LAHARIGHAT ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT PO LAHARIGHAT PS AND DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 782127

6:GAUTAM PATARS.O LATE DURGESWAR PATARVILLAGE BATABORI PO CHATIANTOLI PS LAHARIGHAT DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 782127

------------

Advocate for : MR. M K HUSSAINAdvocate for : SC P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

MOHANTA DEWRIS/O GORSING DEWRI R/O TEGHERIA GAON P.S. JAGIROAD P.O. KAJAJ NAGAR DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782413

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORSREPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PANJABARI GHY- 781037

2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006.

3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

ZILLA PRISHAD MORIGAON ASSAM-782105.

4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER

MAYANG ANCHALIK PANCHAYATJAGI BHAKATGAON MORIGAON ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. M K BOROAdvocate for : SC P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

Linked Case : WP(C)/5724/2024MD. JAKIR HUSSAINS/O- LATE MOKBUL HUSSAIN R/O- VILLAGE DATIALBORI P.O- DATIALBORI DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM

VERSUSTHE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORSREP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006.2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONERMORIGAON ASSAM 3:THE MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHADREP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PO AND PS AND DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 782105

MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD PO AND PS AND DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 782105

5:THE MOIRABARI ANCHALIK PANCHAYATMOIRABARI REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER P.O.-MOIRABARI DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM

6:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICEROF MOIRABARI ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT MOIRABARI P.O.-MOIRABARI DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM

7:MD. RAHUL AMINS/O- ABDUL SAMAD

VILL- BORBARI P.O- LAHARIGAT DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782127

-----------

Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. PK Munir Mr. AM Ahmed Mr. FU Borbhuiya Mr. MK Boro Mr. R Ali Mr. B Rahman Mr. S Borthakur Mr. DA Kaiyum Mr. MK Hussain Advocates for the respondent(s): Mr. K Konwar Additional Advocate General, Assam.

Mr. AK Ghose

Mr. S Dutta

Standing Counsel, P & RD

Department, Govt. of AssamMr. MU Mahmud

Date of hearing : 19.11.2024

Date of Judgment :29.11.2024

BEFOREHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

JUDGMENT & ORDER(CAV)

Heard Mr. PK Munir, Mr. AM Ahmed, Mr. FU Borbhuiya, Mr. MK Boro, Mr. RAli, Mr. B Rahman, Mr. S Borthakur, Mr. DA Kaiyum, Mr. MK Hussain, the learnedcounsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the present batch of writpetitions. Also heard Mr. K Konwar, the learned Additional Advocate General,Assam, who is also the Standing Counsel of the P& RD Department,Government of Assam. In addition to that, on behalf of the P & RD Department,Mr. S Dutta appears. Mr. AK Ghose, Mr. A Sarma and Mr. MU Mahmud, thelearned counsels appear on behalf of the private respondents in the batch ofwrit petitions.

2. The instant batch of writ petitions were filed challenging the Notificationdated 29.06.2024 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government ofAssam, P & RD Department whereby the process of settlement of Haats, Ghats,Fisheries, Pounds etc. for the year 2024-25 for which various Notice InvitingTenders were floated were cancelled on the basis of a decision of the Cabinetdecision dated 27.06.2024. In addition to that, in some of the writ petitions, the Cabinet decision dated 27.06.2024 had also been assailed. The petitionersherein who have been intimated that they are the highest bidders have alsosought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondentauthorities to bring the tender process to a logical conclusion by allowing themto run the settlements.

3. For deciding the dispute(s) involved in the batch of writ petitions, thisCourt would like to deal with the facts which led to the filing of the batch of writpetitions.

4. The materials on record reveal that the various Anchalik Panchayats underthe Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short, the Act of 1994) had issued NITs forsettlement of Haats, Ghats, Ferries, Fisheries etc. in the month of May, 2024.Pursuant to the NITs, the petitioners herein along with various other biddersparticipated in the said bid process and were informed respectively that theirbids were accepted and thereby asking the petitioners to do the needful interms with Rule 47(11) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002 ( forshort, the Rules of 2002). While the said process was on going, a Notificationwas issued on 29.06.2024 by the Principal Secretary to the Government ofAssam, P & RD Department informing all the concerned that pursuant to aCabinet decision held on 27.06.2024, the Governor of Assam had cancelled theongoing process for settlement of Haats, Ghats, Fisheries, Pounds etc., for theyear 2024-25 for which the NITs were already floated. In the said Notification, itwas also mentioned that until new tenders are floated and finalized, the existinglessees may be given extensions at the settlement value fixed for the year 2023-24. The reasons for cancellation was also spelt out in the impugned Notification wherein it was mentioned that the decision was taken by the Cabinet on thebasis of certain complaints being received at various levels that the smalltraders, vendors and other sellers in the Haats and Bazaars etc. were oftenexploited by the bidders who quote exorbitantly high bid prices to grab thelease, and, as such, the Governor of Assam was pleased to make provisions thatno settlement shall be made with the bidders who quote more than 10% of theaverage settled value of the last 3(three) years of these Haats, Ghats, Fisheries,Pounds etc. It was also mentioned that the new NITs would be issued which willinclude these conditions and would be floated for settlement of the Haats,Ghats, Fisheries, Pounds etc., for the year 2024-25.

5. On the basis of the impugned Notification, various office orders wereissued by the Zilla Parishads thereby cancelling the entire tender process. Beingaggrieved, the instant batch of writ petitions have been filed seeking the reliefas above mentioned.

6. The State of Assam had filed the affidavit-in-opposition justifying theimpugned Notification, the details of which, this Court would refer while takingnote of the submissions of the learned counsels.

7. In the backdrop of the above facts, let this Court now take note of thesubmissions made on behalf of the parties.

8. Mr. S Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of thewrit petitioners submitted that Section 105 of the Act of 1994 stipulateshow

settlement of Haats, Ghats, Fisheries, Pounds etc., are to be made by theAnchalik Panchayat. Referring to Sub-Section (2) of Section 105, the learnedcounsel submitted that the detailed procedure for settling of Haats, Ghats,Fisheries, Pounds etc., by way of tender has beenspecifically prescribed in Rule47 of the Rules of 2002. The learned counsel further referred to Section 105 ofthe Act of 1994 which stipulates that re-settlement shall be made subject to theconfirmation of the Zilla Parishad and in respect to the writ petitioners for whomhe represents the Zilla Parishad had confirmed such settlement. The learnedcounsel further referred to Rule 47 of the Rules of 2002 and, more particularlysubmitted that the interference in the said tender process by the Governmentwould only be permissible when a case comes within the ambit of Section105(4) of the Act of 1994 or in a case coming within the ambit of Sub-Rules (9),(10), and (12) of Rule 47(9) of the Rules of 2002.

9. The learned counsel further referred to the provisions of the Constitution ofIndia and, more particularly Article 243G and 243H which stipulates that thepowers, authorities and responsibilities of the panchayat as well as the powersto impose taxes by the panchayats have been already stipulated under the Actof 1994. He submitted that Constitution (Seventy Third) Amendment Act, 1992was enacted thereby inserting Part IX to the Constitution of India so that thepanchayats are empowered and enabled to function as institutions of Self-Governance. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that in view of themandate of the Act of 1994 as well as the Rules framed therein under read withthe Constitutional provisions as contained in Part IX of the Constitution,interference of the State Government is minimal, else it would make theamendment to the Constitution nugatory. He, therefore, submitted that when this Court is dealing with the instant proceedings, this Court has to keep in mindthe said aspect while interpreting the provisions of the Act of 1994.

10. Mr. S Borthakur, the learned counsel further submitted that if theinterpretation is not made in such a manner, it would result in undueinterference by the State Government in all matters, resultantly, the objectbehind the amendment of the Constitution about decentralization of power andpermitting the Panchayats to function as institutions of Self Governance wouldbecome nugatory. The learned counsel referred to the judgment of the SupremeCourt in the Case of the State of Maharashtra Vs. Reliance IndustriesLimited reported in (2017) 10 SCC 713, and more particularly, referred toparagraph 27.

11. The learned counsel Mr. Borthakur further submitted that the impugnedNotification whereby the earlier leasee was permitted to continue is completelycontrary to Sections 105 and Rule 47 of the Rules of 2002.

12. Mr. FU Borbhuiya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of thepetitioners submitted that the petitioners for whom he represents have not onlychallenged the Notification dated 29.06.2024, but also have challenged theCabinet decision dated 27.06.2024. He submitted that the Cabinet decisionwhich was made would result in arbitrariness and unreasonableness, inasmuchas, when all bidders quote the maximum permissible viable rate, it would resultin pick and choose policy.

13. Mr. PK Munir, Mr. AM Ahmed,Mr. MK Boro, Mr. R Ali, Mr. B Rahman, Mr. DAKaiyum and Mr. MK Hussainhave also made similar submissions. But for thesake of brevity, this Court is not repeating the same.

14. Per contra, Mr. K. Konwar, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assamsubmitted that the petitioners had no right to challenge the Notification dated29.06.2024, inasmuch as, no rights had accrued upon them on the basis ofbeing informed about the acceptance of their bids. He submitted that in additionto the acceptance of the bids there are other formalities which are required tobe performed and in absence thereof, there is no concluded contract. Inaddition to that, he submitted that merely being the highest bidder would notconfer any right to get a settlement.

15. The learned Additional Advocate General, Assam further submitted thatthe State of Assam keeping in tune with the Directive Principles of the StatePolicy and, more particularly, Articles 38 and 39 had made a State Policy for thebenefit of the common people, thereby to insert a viable range within which thetenders would be accepted. He submitted that this State Policy had to be madetaking into account that the small traders, vendors and other sellers in theHaats, Bazaars etc. are often exploited by the bidders, who quote exorbitantlyhigh bid price to grab the lease. Further to that, in order to confer benefit uponthe common people by bringing down the price of the commodities beingtraded, it has become a necessity that a viable range had to be incorporated inthe tender documents. On that basis a decision was taken by the Cabinet on27.06.2024. The said Cabinet decision was then notified by the impugnedNotification dated 29.06.2024 whereby the ongoing process of settlement of the Haats, Ghats, Fisheries, Pounds etc. for the year 2024-25 was cancelled.

16. Mr. K. Konwar, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam furthersubmitted that the power so exercised is in terms with Section 122(1) of the Actof 1994, whereby the State had been empowered to issue directions to anyPanchayat in matters relating to State and National Policies and such directionswere binding upon the Panchayat. He, therefore, submitted that it now being apolicy decision of the State to have a viable range in order to protect theexploitation of the small traders, vendors and other sellers the State had thepower to issue such directions.

17. The learned Additional Advocate General, Assam further submitted with allfairness that in view of the settled position of law, he would not contest theaspect pertaining to the extension granted to the old lessees at their existingrate till fresh tenders were not floated. He submitted that pursuant to the stayorders passed, the Anchalik Panchayats are presently running the markets inquestion.

18. Replying to the submissions made by Mr. K Konwar, the learned AdditionalAdvocate General, Assam, Mr. S Borthakur, the learned counsel for thepetitioners submitted that the interpretation so sought to be given by the StateGovernment to Section 122 of the Act of 1994 would amount to undueinterference in all matters of the Panchayats by the State Government inspite ofthe fact that by way of legislation, the powers of the State Government havealready endowed upon the Panchayats. He, therefore, submitted that the manner in which the respondent State had taken the decision by issuing theNotification dated 29.06.2024 was not in accordance with law and, accordingly,liable to be interfered with. He further submitted that the respondents befurther directed to bring the said tender proceedings to a logical conclusion asper the mandates of Rule 47 of the Rules of 2002.

19. Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties andupon perusal of the materials on record, the following points for determinationarise for consideration:

(i) . Whether the impugned Cabinet decision dated 27.06.2024 as well as the impugned Notification issued on 29.06.2024 are contrary to the provisions of theAct of 1994 as well as the constitutional mandate in Part IX of the Constitution?

(ii) . Whether the rights of the petitioners have been affected on the basis ofthe impugned Cabinet decision dated 27.06.2024 as well as the impugnedNotification dated 29.06.2024?

20. Part IX of the Constitution of India was inserted by the Constitution(Seventy Third) Amendment Act 1992. The said amendment was brought togive effect to one of the Directive Principles of the State Policy (DPSP), namelyArticle 40 of the Constitution, whereby the State is required to take steps toorganise village Panchayats and endow upon them with such powers andauthority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of selfgovernment. The instant proceedings relate primarily to the devolution of thepowers of the State upon the Panchayats as mandated in Article 243G andArticle 243H of the Constitution of India. Under such circumstances, it is necessary to deal with the said Articles of the Constitution. Article 243 G of theConstitution is reproduced hereinunder:

‘243G. Powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats. –Subject to theprovisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow thePanchayats with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them tofunction as institutions of self-government and such law may contain provisions for thedevolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats at the appropriate level,subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to- (a) the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice; (b) the implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice asmay be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in theEleventh Schedule’.

21. A perusal of the above-quoted Article 243 G shows that the legislature ofthe State may, by law, endow the Panchayats with such powers and authority asmay be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self governmentand such law may contain, provisions for devolution of powers andresponsibilities upon Panchayats at appropriate level subject to such conditionsas may be specified therein. The conditions have been enumerated in Sub-Articles (a) and (b) of Article 243G of the Constitution. The conditions relate topreparation of plans for economic development and social justice as well as toimplementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as maybe entrusted to them, including those in relation to matters listed in theEleventh Schedule. A further reading of Article 243 G read with the EleventhSchedule to the Constitution would show that it is not a source of legislativepower and it is only an enabling provision that empowers the State to endowfunctions and devolve powers and responsibilities to Panchayats by enacting relevant law. Article 243 H of the Constitution is reproduced hereinunder:

‘243H. Powers to impose taxes by, and Funds of, the Panchayats.- The Legislature of a State may, by law,- (a) authorise a Panchayat to levy, collect and appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees in accordance with such procedure and subject to such limits; (b) assign to a Panchayat such taxes, duties, tolls and fees levied and collected by the State Government for such purposes and subject to such conditions and limits;

(c) provide for making such grants-in-aid to the Panchayats from the ConsolidatedFund of the State; and (d) provide for constitution of such Funds for crediting all moneys received,respectively, by or on behalf of the Panchayats and also for the withdrawal of suchmoneys therefrom, as may be specified in the law.’

22. A perusal of the above-quoted Article mandates that the legislative of theState may, by law, authorize a Panchayat to levy, collect and appropriate suchtaxes, duties, tolls and fees in accordance with such procedure and subject tosuch limits; Further, the Legislature of the State may, by law, assign to thePanchayats such taxes, duties, tolls and fees levied and collected by the StateGovernment for such purposes and subject to such conditions and limits. Inaddition to that, the Legislature of the State, may, by law, provide for makingsuch grants-in-aid to the Panchayats from the Consolidated Fund of the State aswell as provide for constitution of such Funds for crediting all moneys received,respectively, by or on behalf of the Panchayats and also for the withdrawal ofsuch moneys therefrom. Therefore, it would be seen that the power to beexercised by the Panchayats is subject to the law made by the Legislature. Atthis stage, it is pertinent to mention that in the instant batch of writ petitions,there is no challenge to the law made by the Legislature. However, from thecontentions of the parties, one can discern that the contentions of the petitioners is that Section 122 of the Act of 1994 should be read with theConstitutional Scheme as envisaged in Part IX of the Constitution.

23. Pursuant to the amendment made to the Constitution whereby Part IX wasinserted with effect from 24.04.1993, the Act of 1994 was enacted. The powersconferred upon the Anchalik Panchayat to settle Haats can be traced to Section105 of the Act of 1994. Section 105 of the Act of 1994 is reproducedhereinunder:

“105. Settlement of Hats by Anchalik Panchayat.

(1) All Hats within the territorial jurisdiction of Anchalik Panchayat shall be settled in themanner prescribed for a period coinciding with and not exceeding one Panchayatfinancial year by inviting tenders at the office of the Anchalik Panchayat by its President.

(2) Detailed procedure for inviting and submission of such tenders shall be such as maybe prescribed.

(3) The powers of examination and final acceptance of such tenders shall be vested inthe Standing Committee referred to in Section 52 (1) (a).

(4) All settlement made under sub-section (3) shall be subject to the confirmation of theZilla Parishad; Provided that in case of any dispute, the Anchalik Panchayat may refer such case tothe Government and the aggrieved party may appeal to Government whose decision inthis regard shall be final.

(5) Failure to settle any Hat for want of adequate value, the Anchalik Panchayat, as mayby decided by the Zilla Parishad, may be entrusted with the direct management of suchHat by the Anchalik Panchayat.

(6) All sale proceeds of hats shall be deposited in the Anchalik Panchayat fund anddistributed in the manner hereinafter prescribed:

(a) an amounts equivalent to twenty percent of the total sale proceeds of Hats, shall be made over to the Zilla Parishad funds, and (b)an amount equivalent to forty percent of the sale proceeds of Hats shall beequally distributed to all the Gaon Panchayats under the Anchalik Panchayat andremaining forty percent retained in the Anchalik Panchayat Fund:

Provided that amount due if any, on account of annual installment for repayment ofthe loan with interest incurred by the erstwhile Mahkuma Parishad, Anchalik Panchayatand Gaon Panchayat for improvement of hats falling within the jurisdiction of theAncahalik Panchayat and Gaon Panchayat concerned shall be paid out of the fortypercent share of sale proceeds of hats made over to Anchalik Panchayat or GaonPanchayat as the case may be.”

24. A perusal of the above-quoted Section 105 of the Act of 1994 would revealthat settlement of the Haats within the territorial jurisdiction of an AnchalikPanchayat shall be settled in the manner prescribed for a period coinciding withand not exceeding one Panchayat financial year, by inviting tenders at the Officeof the Anchalik Panchayat by its President. Therefore, in terms with Sub-Section(1) of Section 105, it is clear that the settlement can be made for a period ofonly one Panchayat financial year, that too, by inviting tenders. Sub-Section (2)of Section 105 stipulates about the detailed procedure for invitation andsubmission of such tenders and in the manner to be prescribed. Sub-Section (4)of Section 105 stipulates that all settlements made under Sub-Section (3) shallbe subject to confirmation of the Zilla Parishads. Sub-Section (5) of Section 105stipulates that if there is a failure to settle any Haats for want of adequatevalue, the Anchalik Panchayats, as may be decided by the Zilla Parishad, may beentrusted with the direct management of such Haat by the Anchalik Panchayat.

25. The prescription as mentioned in Sub-Section (1) and (2) of Section 105 of

25. The prescription as mentioned in Sub-Section (1) and (2) of Section 105 of the Act of 1994 can be traced to Rule 47 of the Rules of 2002. At this stage, it isvery pertinent to take note of Rule 47(2) of the Rules of 2002 which stipulatesthat the tender notice is required to be floated at least 45 days before the lastdate of the Panchayat financial year and such tender notice shall state, amongstothers, the conditions for submission of tenders, including the amount ofsecurity money for the purpose. This aspect is seen from sub-clause (ii) of Rule47(2) of the Rules of 2002. Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 47 stipulates that a tender ofthe highest bidder shall be accepted and in a circumstance, where the highestbidder is not accepted, the government's prior and formal approval is required.Sub- Rules (11), (12) and (13) of Rule 47 being relevant are reproducedhereinunder:

“Rule 47……………… (11) On acceptance of the tender, the Panchayatconcerned shall inform the selected tenderers concerned requiring the tenderers tosubmit within seven days from the date of issuing the acceptance letter to-

(i) Deposit with the Panchayat concerned not less than thirty percent ofhis quoted amount in his tender as security. The amount of security shall berecorded in the Register in FORM No.12 and accept a duty stamped lease in aForm as specified in Annexure-8 of the Schedule of these rules.his quoted amount in his tender as security. The amount of security shall berecorded in the Register in FORM No.12 and accept a duty stamped lease in aForm as specified in Annexure-8 of the Schedule of these rules.

(ii) The Panchayat concerned shall provide the Form of lease and stampspapers at the concerned lessee’s costpapers at the concerned lessee’s cost

(12) If the tenderer referred to in sub-clauses (ii) fails either to depositthe required amount or to accept the lease within the stipulated period of sevendays, the Panchayat concerned shall refer the matter to the Government whosedecision in this regard, shall be final:

Provided that the lease shall not be issued before deposit of the requiredamount by the tenderer as reffered to in sub-clause (i) of clause(11).

(13) Failure of the tenderer to comply with the condition set forth in sub- clause (11) (i), (ii) shall result in forfeiture of his earnest money deposited inconcerned Panchayat’s Fund.”

26. A perusal of the above quoted Sub-Rules would show that once the tender is accepted, the Panchayat concerned shall inform the selected tendererrequiring the tenderer within 7(seven) days from the date of issue of theacceptance letter, to deposit with the Panchayat concerned not less than 30% ofthe quoted amount in the tender as security and accept a duly stamped lease ina form as specified in Annexure- 8 of the Schedule of the Rules. In addition tothat, the Panchayat concerned shall provide the form of lease and stamp paperat the concerned lessee's cost. Sub-Rule (12) mandates that if the tenderer failseither to deposit the required amount or accept the lease within the stipulatedperiod of seven days, the Panchayat concerned shall refer the matter to thegovernment, whose decision in this regard shall be final. Sub-Rule (13)categorically mentions that if there is a failure on the part of the tenderer tocomply with the conditions set forth in Sub-clause (i) and (ii) of Rule (11), thetenderer shall forfeit the earnest money deposited in the concerned Panchayatfund. These Sub-Rules (11), (12) and (13) of the Rule 47 of the Rules of 2002as quoted above, is of vital relevance for the adjudication of the instant dispute,inasmuch as, there is no formal settlement without the compliance to Sub-RuleClause (i) and (ii) of Rule 47(11) of the Rules of 2002.

27. Coming back to the Act of 1994, it is further relevant to take note of Section122 of the Act of 1994. The said Section being important for the purpose of theinstant dispute is reproduced hereinunder:

“122. Direction from Government.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, it shall be lawful for the Government to issue directions to any Panchayat in matters relating to State andnational policies and such directions shall be binding on the Panchayat.

(2) The Government may

(a) call for any record or register or other document in possession or under thecontrol of any Panchayat; (b)require any Panchayat to furnish return, plan, estimate, statement, accounts orstatistics; and

(c) require any Panchayat to furnish any information or report on any matterconnected with such Panchayat.”

28. A perusal of the Sub-Section (1) of Section 122 shows that it starts with anon-obstante clause thereby empowering the Government of Assam to issuedirections to any Panchayat in matters relating to State and National policiesand such directions shall be binding on the Panchayats. Further to that in termswith Sub-Section (2) of Section 122 of the Act of 1994, the Government maycall for any record or register or other documents in possession or under thecontrol of any Panchayat; require any Panchayat to furnish return, plan,estimate, statement, accounts or statistics; and require any Panchayat to furnishany information or report on any power connected with such Panchayats. Thenon-obstante Clause contained in Section 122, thereby overriding the otherprovisions of the Act of 1994 shows that the Government has pervasive controlover the working of the Panchayats. In addition to that the Government alsoexercise supervisory jurisdiction in respect to settlement to be made by lawupon the Government is not the subject matter of challenge.

29. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of Article 38 of the Constitution of India. There are two Sub-Articles in the said Article. In terms ofSub-Article (1) of Article 38, the State is required to strive to promote thewelfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may, a socialorder in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all institutionsof the National life. Sub-Article (2) of Article 38 mandates that the State, inparticular, strive to minimize the inequalities in income and endeavor toeliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities not only amongstindividuals, but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas orengaged in different vocations. The reference to Article 38 has been madetaking into account that it is the submission of the Additional Advocate Generalthat keeping in tune with the said Article, the Cabinet decision was taken whichresulted in the impugned Notification dated 29.06.2024.

30. On the edifice of the above provisions, let this Court now take up theCabinet decision dated 27.06.2024. The Cabinet decision was taken to ensurefair prices for markets and bazaar. This decision was taken in view of concernsreceived from various quarters on account of high bidding which results insettlement of markets, Public Bazaars, Haats, Ghats, etc., at exorbitant pricesand in order to make payment of the bid amount, the bidders collect the samefrom the traders, vendors and sellers of the concerned markets. Consequently,the prices of the goods traded in these markets are also high which affects thegeneral public. The State of Assam which is a welfare State for the benefit ofthe common people had taken the Cabinet decision to have a viable rate in thebids.

31. It is further apparent from the submissions made by the learned Additional

31. It is further apparent from the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General as well as the contents of affidavit-in-opposition filed byrespondent State that on account of bidding high prices for settlement ofmarkets, Public Bazaars, Haats, Ghats, etc., the small traders, vendors and othersellers in the Haats and Bazaars etc., are exploited by the lessees in order torecuperate the high bid price at which settlements have been made. It furthertranspires that in view of such higher amount being charged from small traders,vendors and other sellers in the Haats and Bazaars, it affects on the price of thegoods traded by these small traders, vendors and other sellers and,consequently, it affects the prices of the goods which are traded and therebyincrease in prices of the commodities. In order to curb these menace, theCabinet decision was taken on 27.06.2024. In the opinion of this Court theCabinet decision is in tune with Article 38 of the Constitution of India. ThisGovernment decision which was taken on 27.06.2024 was duly notified by theimpugned Notification dated 29.06.2024, whereby it was duly notified that aviable range, which would be up to 10% of the average settled value of the lastthree years, would be incorporated in the tender conditions and as such, theGovernor of Assam have cancelled the ongoing tender process.

32. In the opinion of this Court, this part of the Cabinet decision dated27.06.2024, nor the impugned Notification dated 29.06.2024 can be said to bein conflict with any provisions of law. Section 122 of the Act of 1994, asobserved above, empowers the State to pass directions in relation to Nationalpolicies as well as the State policies. The Cabinet decision amounts to a StatePolicy based upon the DPSP. The impugned Notification dated 29.06.2024 is thepolicy decision which gives effect to the State Policy.

33. At this stage, if this Court duly takes note of the submission of the learnedcounsels for the petitioners to the effect that that such interference so made byexercising powers under Section 122 of the Act of 1994 by the StateGovernment would amount to rendering the Part IX of the Constitutionnugatory, in the opinion of this Court is misconceived for two reasons: First, thepowers conferred upon the Panchayats under Article 243G and 243H is subjectto the law made by the Legislature of the State. The law made by theLegislature of the State includes the provisions of Section 122 (1) which conferssupervisory powers to the Government over the Panchayats. Section 122(1) hasnot been put to challenge; Secondly, Section 122(1) confers power upon theState Government to issue directions upon the Panchayats in connection withNational policies as well as State policies which are binding upon thePanchayats. The decision so taken in the Cabinet keeping in tune with Article 38of the Constitution being a State policy and therefore, it cannot be said thatsuch exercise of the powers by the State would amount to rendering Part IX ofthe Constitution nugatory. In that view of the matter, the impugned Cabinetdecision dated 27.06.2024 as well as the impugned Notification dated29.06.2024 insofar as cancellation of the tender process as well as inserting aviable rate do not call for any interference.

34. Be that as it may, a question arises as to whether the second part of theCabinet decision dated 27.06.2024 and the impugned Notification dated29.06.2024 to grant extensions to the existing lessee at the same rate as settledfor the financial year 2023-24 was contrary to the provisions of Section 105(5)as well as Rule 47 of the Rules of 2002. It is a well settled principle of law thatwhen the Statute mandates a thing to be done in a particular way, the same has

to be done in that manner or not at all. Section 105(1) of the Act of 1994categorically mandates that the lease would be granted for one PanchayatFinancial year. In addition to that, it is also seen from Section 105(5) of the Actof 1994 that in the circumstance that the settlement cannot be made, then thesaid Haat, Markets, Bazaar etc., is required to be run by the Anchalik Panchayatupon such decision of the Zilla Parishad. Under such circumstances, this Court isof the opinion that the Cabinet decision and the impugned Notification cannotrun contrary to the provisions of Section 105 of the Act of 1994. Furthermore,the granting of extension is totally foreign to the provisions of the Act of 1994.

35. In view of the above analysis, this Court is of the opinion that theimpugned Cabinet decision dated 27.06.2024 as well as the impugnedNotification dated 29.06.2024 insofar as, the cancellation of the tender processis concerned for the year 2024-25 and to incorporate the viable rate do not callfor any interference. However, as regards the aspect pertaining to extension tobe granted to the existing lessees at the same rate as in the year 2023-24 ascontained in the impugned Cabinet decision dated 27.06.2024 and theimpugned Notification dated 29.06.2024 is interfered with.

36. Now let this Court take up the Second point for determination as towhether the impugned Cabinet decision as well as the impugned Notificationhave affected any rights of the petitioners. In the foregoing paragraphs of theinstant judgment, this Court had duly taken note of the provisions of Rules 11 to13 of Rule 47 of the Rules of 2002. It is seen from a perusal of the said Rulesthat a right would be created when there is a concluded contract. Theconcluded contract would only arise when there is a formal lease entered into. It is very pertinent at this stage to mention that on 27.06.2024, theCabinet decision was taken and the same was duly informed to all Panchayatsvide the impugned Notification dated 29.06.2024. As admittedlyin all the writ petitions, there was no creation of rights by execution of a leaseprior to 29.06.2024, no right had accrued upon the petitioners on the basis ofbeing intimated that their tenders were accepted being the highest bidder. It isfurther relevant to mention here that if any lease entered into by the concernedPanchayats after 29.06.2024 in favour of any of the petitioners or any biddersafter the cancellation of the tender process by the Governor, the same would benonest as it would be contrary to the impugned Notification dated 29.06.2024and the mandates of Sections 122(1) of the Act of 1994.

37. Accordingly the instant batch of writ petitions are disposed of with thefollowing observation(s) and direction(s):

(i) . The impugned Cabinet decision dated 27.06.2024 as well as theimpugned Notification dated 29.06.2024 calls for no interference, in so far ascancellation of the tender process for the period of 2024-25 and the decision toincorporate a viable rate in the tenders.

(ii) . The impugned Cabinet decision dated 27.06.2024 as well as theimpugned Notification dated 29.06.2024 in so far as granting of extension to theexisting lessee till new tenders are not issued runs counter to Section 105 of theAct of 1994 as well as Rule 47 of the Rules of 2002 and, as such, the impugnedCabinet decision dated 27.06.2024 as well as the impugned Notification dated29.06.2024 to that extent are interfered with.

(iii) . The respondent authorities are directed to run the Haats in question till finalization of fresh tenders under the direct management of the concernedAnchalik Panchayat.

(iv) . The respondent authorities are directed to complete the fresh tender process upon finalization of the modalities at the earliest and preferably withinthree months from the date of the instant judgment.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant