Dismissed¶¶9

Pona Tanti and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Dec 2025WP(C)/5806/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pan Shop allotment non-inheritable; Gauhati High Court; WP(C)/5806/2022; order dated 08.12.2025; Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi; Block Development Officer Demow; allotment order 21.09.1992; physically challenged/incumbent's physical disability as basis of licence; representation dated 04.06.2022 for transfer to nephew; impugned notice 28.07.2022 handover to respondent authorities; Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam; Sivasagar; writ dismissed at admission stage; interim order vacated; liberty to apply afresh on merits.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition stands dismissed and the interim order passed earlier stands vacated; however, any fresh application by the petitioners for permission to run a business is to be considered on its own merit along with similarly situated persons. ¶¶9

Pona Tanti and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the permission granted to Shri Suren Tanti on 21.09.1992 to run a Pan Shop, founded on his physical disability, was inheritable by the petitioners (his brother and nephew), so that the representation ought to have been considered and the impugned notice dated 28.07.2022 directing handover of the shop is unsustainable in law.

¶¶28

Court's answer

Permission of the present nature cannot be treated as inheritable in any manner, since it was given to the incumbent taking into consideration his physical disability.

¶¶8

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order/notice dated 28.07.2022 does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶¶8

Key takeaways

Clarificatory direction: if the petitioners apply for permission to run any business, such application would be considered on its own merit along with similarly situated persons.obiter¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (WP(C)/5806/2022, decided 08.12.2025; Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.) — The petitioners (father and son, brother and nephew of one Shri Suren Tanti) challenged a notice dated 28.07.2022 directing handover of a Pan Shop which the Block Development Officer, Demow had permitted Shri Suren Tanti to run by order dated 21.09.1992 in view of his physical disability. The Court held that a permission of the present nature, granted on account of the incumbent's physical disability, cannot be treated as inheritable in any manner, and that the impugned notice dated 28.07.2022 suffers no infirmity. The writ petition was dismissed and the interim order vacated, with liberty to the petitioners to apply afresh for permission to run a business, to be considered on its own merit along with similarly situated persons.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010176502022

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/5806/2022

¶6

PONA TANTI AND ANR S/O- LATE DINANATH TANTI, RESIDENT OF VILL.- DEMOW LACHIT NAGAR, DEMOW, P.O. AND P.S.- DEMOW, DIST- SIVASAGAR (ASSAM).

¶7

2: MANJIT TANTI S/O PONA TANTI

¶8

RESIDENT OF VILL.- DEMOW LACHIT NAGAR DEMOW P.O. AND P.S.- DEMOW

¶9

DIST- SIVASAGAR (ASSAM)

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06.

¶12

2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PANJABARI JURIPAR GUWAHATI- 36.

¶13

3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶14

SIVASAGAR ZILLA PARISHAD

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN- 785640.

¶17

4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DEMOW ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT / DEMOW DEVELOPMENT BLOCK P.O.- DEMOW

¶18

DIST.- SIVASAGAR (ASSAM). PIN- 785662

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R CHOUDHURY, MR N RAHMAN

¶20

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

¶21

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶22

ORDER

¶23

08.12.2025

¶24

Heard Shri N Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri S Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department, Assam for all the respondents.

¶25

2. Considering the subject matter, this writ petition, which is pending since the year 2022, is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶26

3. As per the facts projected, the petitioners are the father and son. An order was passed on 21.09.1992 allowing one Shri Suren Tanti to run a Pan Shop as he was physically challenged. Since he was disabled and unmarried, he had made a representation on 04.06.2022 for transferring the said Shop in the name of petitioner no. 2 who is his nephew. It is also averred that all the fee and revenue were paid upto date. However, by the impugned notice dated 28.07.2022, the said Pan Shop was directed to be handed to the respondent authorities.

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

4. Shri Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the lifetime of the said Suren Tanti, the petitioners had taken care of the aforesaid Shop and as a matter of inheritance, the representation should have been considered and accordingly, the impugned action is unsustainable in law.

¶29

5. Shri Dutta, learned Standing Counsel has, however, submitted that the allotment order itself would show that the same was made on peculiar facts and circumstances and cannot be a matter of inheritance.

¶30

6. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials have been carefully examined.

¶31

7. A cursory glance of the allotment order dated 21.09.1992 would show that the Block Development Officer, Demow had given permission to run the Pan Shop to the said Shri Suren Tanti keeping in view his physical disability. It is not in dispute that the said incumbent had passed away and the present petitioners claimed to be his brother and nephew.

¶32

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, permission of the present nature cannot be treated to be inheritable in any manner as the same was given to the incumbent taking into consideration his physical disability. This Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶33

9. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed and the interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

10. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioners make any application for the permission to run any business, the same would be considered on its own merit along with similarly situated persons.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Pona Tanti and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pona Tanti and Anr. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S B.K Enterprises Vs the Food Corporation of India and 4 Ors.

Shri Keriho Kiso Vs Shri Ketholezo Yongo

Shri Nuzota Shijoh Vs State of Nagaland and Anr.

Bimal Das Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Naren Das Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Burhan Ali Vs the State of Assam and 15 Ors.