Chataimari Bazar Unnayan Samittee v. The State of Assam and 7 Ors

ORDER Date : 17-12-2024 Heard Mr. DP Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the order dated 28.10.2024 issued by the District Commissioner, Goalpara, by which the Gournagar Damribhasha Bridge Tiniali Pashu hat (a private market) has been allowed/permitted to operate on Thursday should be set aside. Page No.# 3/5

¶2The petitioner's counsel submits that in terms of the meeting minutes dated

27.05.2014 held in the office of the District Commissioner, Goalpara, to sort out the anomalies of the Chataimari Weekly Pashu hat (Government market) and Gournagar Damribhasha Bridge Tiniali Pashu hat, it was decided that the Chataimari Weekly Pashu hat would be permitted to operate on Thursday instead of Friday and the Gournagar Weekly Pashu hat would be permitted to operate on Tuesday instead of Friday. Thus, the two markets operated as per the above dates.

¶3The petitioner's counsel submits that the dates when the markets would be opened in terms of the meeting minutes dated 27.05.2014 has been changed, vide the impugned order dated 28.10.2024, wherein the Gournagar Damribhasha Bridge Tiniali Pashu hat has been permitted to operate on Thursday, which is the same day allowing for the operation of the Government market.

¶4The petitioner's counsel submits that the District Commissioner, Goalpara could not have changed the date of operating the private market on the same date that the Government market was operating.

¶5Mr. G Bokalial, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 4 & 5 and Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 6 submit that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition, inasmuch as, he has got no role to play in the operation of either of the markets, i.e., the Government market or the private market.

¶6Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 6 submits that Page No.# 4/5 the Government markets are all being run by the concerned Anchalik Panchayats and the petitioner is not running the Chataimari Weekly Pashu hat at present.

¶7I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶8It is an admitted fact that the Chataimari Weekly Pashu hat (Government market) and the Gournagar Damribhasha Bridge Tiniali Pashu hat (private market) are being run in different locations and on different lands. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner as on date, is not having any role to play in the running of either of the two markets. As such, this Court is unable to understand the reason for the petitioner making a challenge to the District Commissioner's decision to allow the private markets to operate on Thursday. In the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Supreme Court has held that only those persons, whose enforceable rights have been violated, can approach a Writ Court for a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution, for enforcement of their rights.

¶9In the present case, no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated and as such, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person, so as to pray for a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶10The above being said, when the earlier dates of opening the markets had been made by the Deputy Commissioner/District Commissioner, Goalpara and the said dates have been changed by the same authority in the year 2024, this Page No.# 5/5 Court is unable to understand as to how/why the District Commissioner cannot review its own decision. The petitioner has also not been able to show any law, rule or guideline which prohibits the operation of the Government market and a private market on the same day. There is also nothing shown to the effect that the private market cannot be allowed to open on a Thursday.

¶11In view of the reasons stated above, this Court finds that there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010270462024 ooooooo 2024:GAU-AS:12800 ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/6793/2024o CHATAIMARIoBAZARoUNNAYANoSAMITTEEo AoREGISTEREDoSOCIETYoHAVINGoITSoREGISTEREDoOFFICEoATo CHATAIMARI,oP.O.-SIMLABARI,oP.S.-LAKHIPUR,oDIST-oGOALPARAo (ASSAM),oPIN-783330,oREPRESENTEDoBYoITSoPRESIDENToMD.oZIADULo HOQUE,o30oYEARS VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo7oORSo REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoPRINCIPALoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVERNMENToOF ASSAM,oPANCHAYAToANDoRURALoDEVELOPMENToDEPARTMENT,oDISPUR, GUWAHTI-781006 2:THEoDISTRICToCOMMISSIONER oGOALPARA oP.O.oANDoDIST-oGOALPARA oASSAM 3:THEoCHIEFoEXECUTIVEoOFFICER oGOALPARAoZILLAoPARISHAD oGOALPARA 4:THEoCIRCLEoOFFICER oLAKHIPURoREVENUEoCIRCLE oLAKHIPUR oDIST-oGOALPARA oASSAM 5:THEoOFFICERo-IN-oCHARGE oLAKHIPURoPOLICEoSTATION oLAKHIPUR oDIST-oGOALPARA oASSAM Page No.# 2/5 6:EXECUTIVE OFFICER JALESWAR ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT KATARIHARA DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM 7:MD. ABDUL MOZID S/O LATE ROSTOM ALI R/O VILL- DAMBRIBHASA P.O.-KATARIHARA P.S.-LAKHIPUR DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783132 8:MD. ABDUL WADUD MOLLAH S/O LATE ROMAN MOLLAH R/O VILL- DAMBRIBHASA P.O.-KATARIHARA P.S.-LAKHIPUR DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-78313 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D P BORAH, MR U GHOSH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., MR. D A KAIYUM (FOR CAVEATOR),GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA