Disposed

Mantu Sharma v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC16 Jun 2022WP(C)/2257/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a market settler seeking refund of deposits after being unable to operate the assigned market. Court directed respondent to process refund application within four weeks without adjudicating operational delays regarding possession or statutory challenges. Disposed of on administrative directive.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.3 to process refund of deposited amount upon receipt of petitioner's application within four weeks.

Mantu Sharma Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Consumer Protection | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010060872022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2257/2022

¶5

MANTU SHARMA

¶6

S/O BHABESH SHARMA, P/R/O VILL-CHALANTAPARA PART-I, P.S.JOGIGHOPA, DIST-BONGAIGAON, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM-781006

¶9

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON

¶10

ASSAM-783380

¶11

3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BONGAIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD BONGAIGAON

¶12

4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER BOITAMARI ANCHOLIK PANCHAYAT ASSA

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SURAJIT DAS

¶14

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

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶18

16.06.2022

¶19

Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.K. Dev Nath, learned standing counsel, PNRD, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 4 and Mr. N. Goswami, learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent No.2. None has appeared for the respondent No.3.

¶20

The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that pursuant to the NIT dated 04.05.2021, he had submitted his bid for settlement of “Kabaitari Saptahik Poshu Hat” for the period from 01.07.2021 till 30.06.2022. On opening the bids, the petitioner’s tender emerged as the highest and accordingly, by the order of settlement dated 30.06.2021, the market was settled with the petitioner for annual settlement value of Rs.11,00,100/-. The petitioner had also deposited a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- on 05.07.2021 and was entertaining a legitimate expectation that the respondents would hand over the possession of the market to him for operating the settlement. However, the petitioner was not allowed to operate the market. When repeated requests made by the petitioner to allow him to operate the market did not evoke any response from the authorities, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus.

¶21

Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since his client could not operate the market as per the order of settlement dated 30.06.2021, the amount deposited by him including the security deposit be directed to be refunded to him by the respondent No.3.

¶22

Mr. Dev Nath, learned standing counsel, PNRD submits that there would be no difficulty in refunding the deposits made by the petitioner but the petitioner must be directed to make an application to that effect by following the due procedure of law.

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

According to Mr. Dev Nath, possession of the market could not be handed over to the petitioner because of advisory coming from the District and Police Administration as well as on account of enactment of Assam Cattle Reservation Act, 2021 which contains certain provisions which were required to be examined at the relevant point of time.

¶25

Since the period mentioned would come to an end on 01.07.2022 and since the only relief prayed for by the petitioner’s counsel is for refund of the amount deposited by his client including the security deposit, it would not be necessary for this Court to go into the excruciating factual details of this case. With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, this writ petition is being disposed of by providing that the petitioner shall make an application before the respondent No.3 seeking refund of the amount deposited by him. On receipt of such application, the same be processed in accordance with law and disposed of within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt.

¶26

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Mantu Sharma v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mantu Sharma v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandeswar Handique Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Ershad Ibhrahim Zaman Vs Tankeswar Das and 2 Ors.

Munindra Kumar Dev Sarma and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Jyotishkar Kakati Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Board of Directors of Dhubri Wholesale Consumers Co-Operative Stores Ltd., Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Dinabandhu Nayak and Anr. Vs Prasanta Borkakati