Dismissed

Rupendrajit Sharma v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Jun 2022WP(C)/3729/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a weekly market holder in Sonitpur seeking extension of settlement due to pandemic restrictions, was represented in this writ petition. The court relied on a Division Bench decision holding that settlement periods are strictly limited to one financial year. The petition was dismissed on legal tenability grounds.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. Petitioner advised to seek remission via application under Rule 47 of Assam Panchayat [Financial] Rules, 2002.

Rupendrajit Sharma Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010108242022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3729/2022

¶5

RUPENDRAJIT SHARMA S/O- LATE PRANESWAR SHARMA R/O- WARD NO.6, DHEKIAJULI, P.O AND P.S- DHEKIAJULI, PIN-784110

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

¶8

REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶9

2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶10

3:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ASSAM JURIPAR PANJABARI GUWAHATI- 781037.

¶11

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SONITPUR TEZPUR ASSAM PIN-784001

¶12

5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SONITPUR ZILA PARISHAD

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

TEZPUR ASSAM-784001

¶15

6:THE PRESIDENT DHEKIAJULI ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT DHEKIAJULI SONITPUR ASSAM-784001

¶16

7:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CUM EX OFFICIO SECRETARY DHEKIAJULI SONITPUR ASSAM -78411

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M R ADHIKARI

¶18

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

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 06-06-2022

¶23

Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S.P. Chetry, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel & Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1 & 4; and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department for the respondent nos. 2, 3, 5 & 7.

¶24

The petitioner was settled with Garubandha Weekly Market [‘the Market’, for short] under the respondent Sonitpur Zilla Parishad for the Panchayat Financial Year : 2019 - 2020 by an order of settlement dated 21.08.2019. The petitioner was settled with the Market at his offered yearly settlement amount of Rs. 7,23,332/- and the proportionate settlement amount

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

of Rs. 6,25,906/- for the period w.e.f. 21.08.2019 to 30.06.2020. In respect of the Panchayat Financial Year : 2020 - 2021 also, the petitioner was settled with the Market by an order of settlement dated 01.07.2020 at a settlement of Rs. 7,23,332/-. By another order of settlement dated 10.09.2021, the petitioner was settled with the Market at his offered yearly settlement amount of Rs. 7,23,332/- for the Panchayat Financial Year : 2021 - 2022 and for a proportionate settlement amount of Rs. 5,70,316/- for the period w.e.f. 10.09.2021 to 30.06.2022.

¶27

It is the case of the petitioner that during the Panchayat Financial Year : 2021-2022, the petitioner was seriously affected due to the situation emerging for Covid-19 pandemic. During the period of operation of the Market for the Panchayat Financial Year : 2021-2022, there was closure of the Market at various points of time due to the SOPs issued by the Government of India as well as by the State Government and as a result, the petitioner could not operate the Market for the entire term continuously. The situation was further aggravated due to restricted hours of functioning of the Market. In such view of the matter, the petitioner had preferred a representation before the respondent no. 5 on 23.05.2022 seeking extension of the settlement period of the Market for another 1 [one] year i.e. for the Panchayat Financial Year : 2022 – 2023. The petitioner has, thereby, made a prayer that to recoup the loss he has suffered during the earlier settlement period, he should be granted the extension and he had also offered to deposit an amount @ 5% above the previous settlement amount.

¶28

In essence, the petitioner has sought extension of the settlement period of the Market with which he was settled with during the previous Panchayat Financial Year : 2021 – 2022.

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

The issue is no longer res integra in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Md. Abdul Barik vs. The State of Assam and others, reported in 1997 [1] GLT 164. The Division Bench upon going through the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, more particularly, Section 105, has held that Section 105[1] of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 clearly indicates that the Legislature has given a mandate to the concerned Anchalik Panchayat that as far as haats [markets] are concerned, they have to be settled only for a period of 1 [one] financial year and by inviting tenders. It is held that the power of the Anchalik Panchayat is absolutely circumscribed by the provisions of Section 105[1] and the settlement cannot be for a period of more than 1 [one] year and the settlement has also to be only by inviting tenders. Thus, where a settlement has been made for 1 [one] year already, the period of settlement cannot be extended for any period beyond the period of 1 [one] year. Moreover, after the period of 1 [one] year has expired in respect of a settlement, the next settlement has to be only by inviting tenders from all intending parties and not by extending the settlement of the party in whose favour the settlement had been made for the earlier period.

¶31

Having regard to the above decision of the Division Bench in Md. Abdul Barik [supra] qua the fact situation obtaining in the case, I do not find the prayer of the petitioner regarding extension of the settlement period for another year legally tenable. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶32

At this stage, Mr. Sarmah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner shall not be precluded to make any application seeking remission of the settlement amount under Rule 47 of the Assam Panchayat [Financial] Rules, 2002. The learned departmental counsel has not objected to the said

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

submission. It is observed that notwithstanding the dismissal of this writ petition, the petitioner is not precluded to seek remission of the settlement amount under Rule 47 of the Assam Panchayat [Financial] Rules, 2002 by filing appropriate application before the State Government for consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Rupendrajit Sharma v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupendrajit Sharma v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tanmoy Borah Vs Prabhakar Shukla and 2 Ors.

East India Supply Centre Vs Mukesh Ch Sahu and 3 Ors.

Bodolands Martyrs Family Association Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Malina Deb Barman Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Motiur Rohman Bora and 13 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Malina Deb Barman Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.