Disposed¶38

M/S Narayani Builders v. the Guwahati Municipal Corporation

Gauhati HC6 Apr 2025WP(C)/1761/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati HC WP(C)/1761/2025 (order dt. 07-04-2025, Arun Dev Choudhury J) — Narayani Builders / Paramount Taj / Suresh Agarwalla v. GMC, Commissioner GMC & GMDA; stop-construction notice 01.03.2025 lacking details of setback/other deviations held defective; notice interfered with; fresh detailed notice by respondent No. 2 ordered with opportunity to reply; costs borne by parties.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: impugned notice dated 01.03.2025 interfered with, with liberty to GMDA/GMC to issue an appropriate notice disclosing the details of deviation and giving the petitioner an opportunity to reply; parties to bear their own costs. ¶38

M/S Narayani Builders Vs the Guwahati Municipal Corporation — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notice dated 01.03.2025, while alleging deviations in setback and other deviations, disclosed sufficient details of the alleged deviations to enable the petitioner to rectify defects or submit an effective reply. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

Though the impugned notice alleged certain deviations in setback and other deviations, it did not make clear the details of the setback deviation or what other deviations were detected; in consequence, the petitioner would not even be able to rectify the defects, if permissible under law, or to submit an effective reply.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

In view of the Advocate General's submission that details will be provided to the petitioner, the matter should be relegated to the authority (respondent No.2) once again to issue a proper notice disclosing the details of the deviation found by the authorities, so that the petitioner can effectively make its reply.

¶34

Key takeaways

The impugned notice dated 01.03.2025 is interfered with, with liberty to the GMDA/GMC to issue an appropriate notice disclosing the details of deviation and giving the petitioner an opportunity to reply.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WP(C)/1761/2025, Gauhati High Court, decided 07-04-2025 by Justice Arun Dev Choudhury): M/s Narayani Builders, M/s Paramount Taj and Suresh Agarwalla v. Guwahati Municipal Corporation, its Commissioner and the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority. The petitioners, who had carried out construction under a GMDA permit dated 23.03.2021 and GMC NOC/permit dated 02.08.2022 (renewal having lapsed, with deviations found during the renewal process), assailed a stop-construction notice dated 01.03.2025 issued by the GMC. Holding that although the notice alleged deviations in setback and other deviations, it did not disclose their details, leaving the petitioner unable to rectify the defects or reply effectively, the court interfered with the notice and relegated the matter to respondent No. 2 (Commissioner, GMC) to issue a proper notice disclosing the details of the deviation, giving the petitioner an opportunity to reply. Parties to bear their own costs. No statute or precedent is cited in the judgment.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010063582025

2025:GAU-AS:4245

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/1761/2025

¶6

M/S NARAYANI BUILDERS

¶7

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICES/REGISTERED PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 6TH FLOOR EXOTICA GREENS 191 RG BARUAH ROAD GUWHAATYI PIN 781005 DIST KAMRUP METRO ASSAM REP BY ITS PARTNER, SHRI ROHIT DEORAH, 51 YEARS,S/O LT RAJ KUMAR DEORAH A RESIDENT OF 191 R G BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI PIN 781005 DIST KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM

¶8

2: M/S PARAMOUNT TAJ

¶9

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICES/ REGISTERED PLACE OF BUSINESS AT BLOCK 1 PARAMOUNT GRANDE NEAR SARUSAJAI STADIUM GUWAHATI 781034 DIST KAMRUP MTEOR ASSAM REP BY ITS PARTNER

¶10

SHRI SURESH AGARWALLA 45 YEARS

¶11

S/O LT MANNALAL AGARWALLA R/O BLOCK 7 PARAMOUNT GRANDE NEAR SARUSAJAI STADIUM GUWAHATI 781034 DIST KAMRUP METRO ASSAM

¶12

3: SURESH AGARWALLA

¶13

S/O LT MANNALAL AGARWALA R/O BLOCK 7 PARAMOUNT GRANDE NEAR SARUSAJAI STADIUM GUWAHATI 781034 DIST KAMRUP METRO ASSA

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶16

REP BY ITS MAYOR, GMC, GANESH MANDIR GANESHGURI GUWAHATI 6 ASSAM

¶17

2:THE COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PANBAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 ASSAM

¶18

Page No.# 2/4

¶19

3:THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶20

STATFED BUILDING BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI 781005 ASSA

¶21

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MR. N BARUAH

¶22

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GMC, SC, G M D A

¶23

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶24

ORDER

¶25

07-04-2025

¶26

1. Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. S, Bora learned standing Counsel for the GMC/GMDA.

¶27

2. By way of the writ petition, the petitioner has assailed notice dated 01.03.2025 issued by the respondent/Guwahati Municipal Corporation.

¶28

3. It is the contention of the Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel that the construction was carried out in terms of the GMDA permit dated 23.03.2021 and GMC’s NOC and permit dated 02.08.2022, however, the stop construction notice lacks clarity and nothing is disclosed as regards the alleged violations, so as to effectively respond to such notice.

¶29

4. Per contra, Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam contends that even otherwise, the petitioner cannot carry on construction inasmuch as the original permission for renewal has in the meantime lapsed and during

¶30

Page No.# 3/4

¶31

the process of renewal, certain deviations were found and accordingly, the petitioner was issued the notice and was directed to submit the revised planning permit from GMDA before renewal of NOC.

¶32

5. Therefore according to Mr. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam, the petitioner can approach the authority for clarification in this regard, which the authority will definitely clarify inasmuch the notice cannot be said to be a coercive action more particularly when the period of original NOC and Building permit had expired.

¶33

6. Be that as may, the limited grievance raised by the petitioner is want of clarity as regards the alleged violation. It is true that though in the impugned notice, it is alleged that certain deviations in setback and other deviations had been detected, however, it was not made clear that details of deviation of setback or what are the other deviation that has been detected. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner will not be even able to rectify the defects, if permissible under law or to submit an effective reply.

¶34

7. However, in view of the submissions made by the learned Advocate General, Assam, that the details will be provided to the petitioner, this court is of the opinion that the matter should be relegated to the authority (respondent No.2) once again to issue a proper notice by disclosing the details of the deviation that has been found by the authorities, so that the petitioner can effectively make it reply.

¶35

8. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 01.03.2025 is interfered with, however, with a liberty to the GMDA/GMC to issue an appropriate notice disclosing the details of deviation and giving an opportunity to the

¶36

Page No.# 4/4

¶37

petitioner to reply.

¶38

9. This disposes the writ petition. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

M/S Narayani Builders v. the Guwahati Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Narayani Builders v. the Guwahati Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Union of India Vs Susmita Das and Ors.

Habibur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

M/S Saikhowa Sadiya Meen Samabai Samiti Ltd. Vs Yadav Pegu and Anr.

Bhubaneswar Ghosh and 21 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Binod Hazarika Vs the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority and 2 Ors.

Abdul Kuddus Laskar Vs the State of Assam and Ors.