Disposed

Dipak Das v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 Jun 2022WP(C)/4048/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam to consider the petitioner's representation for remission of kist money due to pandemic-related losses, based on Rule 49 of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002.

What did the court decide?

In the matter to be remitted to respondent no. 2 for consideration and decision under Rule 49 of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002.

Dipak Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010118592022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4048/2022

¶5

DIPAK DAS S/O- LATE KHIRODLAL DAS, R/O- VILL GUIJAN KRISHNAPARA, P.O- RANGAGARHA, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786147

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

¶8

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶9

2:COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PANJABARI JURIPAR GUWAHATI-37.

¶10

3:CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TINSUKIA ZILLA PARISHAD TINSUKIA ASSAM

¶11

4:EXECUTIVE OFFICER GUIJAN ANCHALIK PAMCHAYAT GUIJAN

¶12

TINSUKIA ASSAM

¶13

5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

TINSUKIA ASSA

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K DAS

¶17

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

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 17/06/2022

¶21

Heard Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam, appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. J. Handique, learned Government Advocate, Assam, representing the respondent no. 5.

¶22

The writ petitioner herein, was the settlement holder of Guijan Daily Market, Guijan in the district of Tinsukia for a period of one year with effect from 20/07/2021. The petitioner had deposited kist money of Rs. 1,05,001/- on 19/07/2021 for operating the market. However, due to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, the stall owners in the market did not pay the daily toll to the petitioner, as a result of which, he has suffered losses to the tune of 90% of his investment. Under the circumstances, the petitioner had submitted representations before the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia as well as the Chief Executive Officer, Tinsukia Zilla Parishad, ventilating his grievance with a request to stall the fresh tender process for settlement of the market. However, when such representations had failed to evoke any response, the petitioner had approached the respondent no. 2 by filing representation dated 07/06/2022 (Annexure-8) which has not been disposed of till date. Hence, this writ petition.

¶23

Mr. Das submits that although the petitioner had requested for stay of fresh tender process, yet, at this stage, the only prayer of the writ petitioner is for remission of kist money, so as to enable

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

him to recoup is losses and the writ petitioner is not seeking stay of the Tender Notice. By referring to Rule 49 of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002, Mr. Das submits that the Government of Assam has the power to grant such remission and, therefore, the matter be directed to be considered by the competent authorities.

¶26

Mr. Dutta and Mr. Handique have submitted in their usual fairness that they would have no objection if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to consider the prayer made by the petitioner in the representation dated 07/06/2022 in the light of Rule 49 of the Rules of 2002.

¶27

Ordered accordingly.

¶28

Petitioner to submit a copy of this order along with the representation dated 07/06/2022 before the respondent no. 2 within two weeks from today. On receipt of such representation, the matter be considered in the light of the provisions of Rules of 2002 and an appropriate decision be taken in respect thereof.

¶29

Whatever be the decision, the same be communicated to the petitioner within three months thereafter.

¶30

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

sukhamay

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Dipak Das v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipak Das v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mantu Sharma Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Jyotishkar Kakati Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Nandeswar Handique 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

Atiqul Islam and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.