Disposed¶35

Sushankar Paul v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Mar 2025WP(C)/3965/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Natural justice; denial of opportunity of hearing; adjournment request on first occasion refused without reasons; writ of certiorari; demolition of boundary wall; encroachment 0.87 metre road; show cause notice 17.05.2024; Silchar Development Authority; Chairman; Town and Country Planning Act 1959 Sections 13, 13(4A), 13(4B), 30B, 30B(1,2,3); administrative order set aside; fresh hearing ordered within one month; Gauhati High Court 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 set aside; petitioner and respondent No. 3 directed to appear before the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority on 28.03.2025 at 03:30 PM, and the Chairman to hear the matter afresh and take a fresh decision within one month from 28.03.2025. ¶35

Sushankar Paul Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's right of hearing was rejected without sufficient reason when his first adjournment request went unaddressed in the impugned demolition order dated 22.07.2024, warranting setting aside of that order by writ of certiorari.

¶32

Court's answer

Since the adjournment was sought by the petitioner citing a reason and it was the first such request, the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority ought to have granted one date of adjournment; it cannot be said the petitioner intended to delay the matter.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's right of hearing was rejected without any sufficient reason, as the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 reflects no reason for rejecting the adjournment prayer.

¶32

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 22.07.2024 is set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 appear before the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority on 28.03.2025 at 03:30 PM, whereafter the Chairman shall hear the matter and take a fresh decision within one month from that date.ratio¶33
The present order is not to be treated as any comment on the merit of the claim and counter claim regarding violation of permission; the Chairman shall apply its own mind and decide the issue raised as per law.obiter¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Arun Dev Choudhury, J.), WP(C)/3965/2024, decided 05.03.2025 — Certiorari against order dated 22.07.2024 of the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority under Sections 13, 13(4A), 13(4B) and 30B, 30B(1,2,3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959 directing demolition of the petitioner's boundary wall for alleged encroachment of 0.87 metre of road. The petitioner's adjournment application on the hearing date — his first such request, supported by reasons — was declined and the demolition direction passed without recording any reason for rejecting the prayer. Held that the right of hearing was rejected without sufficient reason and one adjournment ought to have been granted. Impugned order set aside subject to appearance of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 before the Chairman on 28.03.2025 at 03:30 PM and a fresh decision within one month thereof; expressly no comment on the merits.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010157192024

2025:GAU-AS:2307

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/3965/2024

¶6

SUSHANKAR PAUL

¶7

SON OF LATE SUDHIR RANJAN PAUL, RESIDENT OF BELTOLA, MEHERPUR, P.O.- SILCHAR, P.S. SILCHAR, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788015

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06

¶10

2:THE CHAIRMAN SILCHAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PWD ROAD P.O.- SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001

¶11

3:SRI SUBIR CHANDRA SAHA RESIDENT OF DURGAPALLY MEHERPUR P.O. SILCHAR P.S. SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788015

¶12

4:SRI SAMBHU SAHA RESIDENT OF DURGAPALLY MEHERPUR P.O. SILCHAR P.S. SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 78801

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA, MR A HOSSAIN,MR. A B T HAQUE

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. S P CHOUDHURY (R-2),MS. J CHETTRY (R3),MS. S KANUNGOE(R-3),MS. S SEAL(R-3)

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶17

ORDER

¶18

05.03.2025

¶19

Heard Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Konwar, learned State counsel representing the respondent No. 1, Mr. S. P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. None appears for the respondent No. 4, though service of notice upon the respondent No. 4 was accepted.

¶20

The petitioner is seeking writ of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 22.07.2024 issued by the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar. By the aforesaid order, the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar, in exercise of power under Section 13, 13(4A), 13(4B) and Section 30B, 30B (1,2,3) of Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, directed the petitioner to remove the boundary wall by demolition.

¶21

It is on record that on the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar, issued a show cause notice on 17.05.2024 to the petitioner inter alia alleging that the field report conducted by the Silchar Development Authority, Silchar, discloses that the petitioner had constructed boundary wall by encroaching 0.87 meter road in eastern side of the land of the petitioner inasmuch as, as per permission granted to construct such boundary wall, it was clearly mentioned that eastern side 1.82 meter road is existing. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

why, demolition should not be done for violation of the permission.

¶24

The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice dated 17.05.2024 on 27.05.2024, inter alia contending that the boundary wall has been constructed by obtaining necessary permission and he has not violated the permission so granted and also requested the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar, to accept his reply and dismiss the complaint.

¶25

Thereafter, the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar by its communication dated 25.06.2024, requested the petitioner to attend the office of the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar on 29.06.2024 at 03:30 PM, either in person or through authorized representative for hearing. The petitioner was also directed by the aforesaid communication to bring all relevant papers/documents in supports his defence. It was also intimated the petitioner that in case of his failure to attend the same, the matter shall be heard and decided in his absence.

¶26

Thereafter, on 29.06.2026, an application was filed by the employee of the petitioner namely, Arjun Das Talukdar on behalf of the petitioner stating that the petitioner is out of station in connection with some important business matters and as such he is unable to attend the hearing and therefore, he prayed to fix another date for hearing. However, by the impugned order dated 22.07.2024, the direction of demolition was granted by the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar.

¶27

Mr. S. P. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar, in his usual fairness submits that an opportunity of hearing still may be granted to the petitioner provided he will not delay the proceeding before the Chairman.

¶28

Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, has also conceded

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

to such submission.

¶31

This Court is also of the opinion that since an adjournment was sought for by the petitioner citing reason, the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar, ought to have granted one date of adjournment inasmuch as it cannot be said the petitioner intended to delay the matter more particularly, in the given facts, it was the first date seeking adjournment.

¶32

In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s right of hearing has been rejected without any sufficient reason inasmuch as there is no reflection in the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 any reason for rejection of such prayer.

¶33

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Chairma, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar, is set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 shall appear before the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar on 28.03.2025 at 03:30 PM subject to the convenience of the Chairman and thereafter, the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar, shall hear the matter and take a fresh decision within a period of one month from such date i.e. 28.03.2025.

¶34

It is needless to say that this order shall not be treated as any comment on the merit of the claim and counter claim of the parties as regards the violation of permission. The Chairman, Silchar Development Authority, Silchar, shall apply its own mind and decide the issue raised as per law.

¶35

This writ petition stands disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Sushankar Paul v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushankar Paul v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Mukul Kumar Sarma. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ganesh Buragohain Vs Preetam Saikia, Acs and 5 Ors.

Riaz Uddin Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mamata Mech and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sushankar Paul Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Subir Chandra Saha Vs Sushankar Paul and 3 Ors.