Dismissed¶¶44

The Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited v. the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Jun 2025WP(C)/659/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Namrup Town Committee; Assam Municipal Act 1956 Section 334(1), 334(3), 334(4), Section 60; Article 243Q Constitution of India industrial township; Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited; Dibrugarh; Naharkatia Revenue Circle; belated objection beyond six weeks; Deputy Commissioner lack of jurisdiction; Speaking Order; Notification No. UDD(M)/233/2013/12 dated 01.03.2014; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; no relief can be granted in exercise of the power of judicial review, the writ petition stands dismissed and the parties are to bear their own costs. ¶¶44

The Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; no relief can be granted in exercise of the power of judicial review, the writ petition stands dismissed and the parties are to bear their own costs.

¶¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can interfere with the Notification dated 01.03.2014 issued under Sub-Section 4 of Section 334 of the Act, 1956 on the ground that the petitioner company's objection, filed beyond the stipulated six-week period, was not considered. +1 more

¶¶39

Court's answer

Since the objection was admittedly filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh only after expiry of the six-week period, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with the Notification dated 01.03.2014 issued under Sub-Section 4 of Section 334 of the Act, 1956 merely on the ground that the belatedly filed objection was not considered; the learned counsel's arguments on this count stand negated.

¶¶39

Ratio / Principle

Under the Scheme of the Act, 1956, the Deputy Commissioner is vested with no power and jurisdiction to entertain such an application or to make an enquiry; under Sub-Section 1 of Section 334 of the Act, 1956, the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District is only empowered to receive objections within the stipulated period of time and forward the same to the Governor of Assam for consideration.

¶¶42

Key takeaways

No right accrues to the petitioner company to assail the Notification on the ground that subsequently the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh took note of its objection, made an enquiry and a Speaking Order was passed.ratio¶¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitution of Namrup Town Committee — Assam Municipal Act, 1956, S. 334 — writ petition by Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. seeking exclusion of its 51 dags from the notified area — initial Notification dated 09.01.2014 under S. 334(1) invited objections within six weeks through the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh; petitioner's representation dated 24.02.2014 was filed beyond the stipulated period (expiry 20.02.2014); final Notification dated 01.03.2014 issued under S. 334(4) declaring the Namrup Town Committee area — Held: (i) the writ court cannot interfere with the Notification dated 01.03.2014 merely because the petitioner's belated objection was not considered; (ii) under the Scheme of the Act, 1956, the Deputy Commissioner has no power or jurisdiction to entertain a representation outside the statutory objection window or to make an enquiry, his function under Sub-Section 1 of Section 334 being confined to receiving objections within the stipulated period and forwarding them to the Governor of Assam; (iii) no right accrues to the petitioner from the Deputy Commissioner's subsequent consideration, enquiry and Speaking Order — Article 243Q plea noted as ground of the 13.11.2014 representation but no relief granted — writ petition dismissed, parties to bear their own costs.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010174972015

2025:GAU-AS:7393

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/659/2015

¶6

THE BRAHMAPUTRA VALLEY FERTILIZER CORPORATION LIMITED A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT NAMRUP, P.O. PARBATPUR, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786623

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE SECY., MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS and FERTILIZERS, DEPTT. OF FERTILIZERS, NEW DELHI-1

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY-6

¶11

3:THE URBAN DEVEL. DEPTT.

¶12

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM URBAN DEVL. DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6

¶13

4:THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM URBAN DEVL. DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6

¶14

5:THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION ASSAM DISPUR GHY-6

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

6:THE DY. COMMISSIONER DIBRUGARH ASSAM

¶17

7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER NAHARKATIA REVENUE CIRCLE NAHARKATIA DIBRUGARH ASSAM

¶18

8:THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSION DISPUR GHY-6 ASSAM

¶19

9:THE NAMRUP TOWN COMMITTEE NAMRUP TOWN NAMRUP DIBRUGARH ASSA

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S N SARMA, MR.S CHOUDHURY,MR.A SARMA,MR.K KALITA

¶21

Advocate for the Respondent : MR B TALUKDAR(MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPTT.), ASSTT.S.G.I.(R1),SC, ELECTION COMMISSION.(R8),GA, ASSAM(R2-R7)

¶22

BEFORE

¶23

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶24

ORDER

¶25

05-06-2025

¶26

1. Heard Ms. G. Swami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Handique, learned State counsel for the respondents.

¶27

2. A Notification under No. UDD(M)233/2013/11 dated 09.01.2014 in terms of Section 334(1) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1956), was published, expressing the intention of the Governor of Assam to constitute a Town Committee at Namrup in the District of Dibrugarh for providing improved amenities

¶28

Page No.# 3/5

¶29

within the limits of the boundaries specified in the aforesaid Notification. In the aforesaid Notification, as mandated under Section 334 (1) of the Act, 1956, objections to the aforesaid intention were sought for by the Governor of Assam through the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of publication of the Notification.

¶30

3. The aforesaid 6 (six) weeks time limit for filing of objection expired on 20.02.2014. As pursuant to such Notification, nobody filed objection before the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, within the stipulated period of time from the date of publication of the Notification dated 09.01.2014, the Governor of Assam, in exercise of its power conferred under Section 334 (4) of the Act, 1956, vide Notification No. UDD(M)/233/2013/12 dated 01.03.2014 was pleased to declare the area specified under the aforesaid Notification to be area of Namrup Town Committee, in the District of Dibrugarh.

¶31

4. In the meantime, after expiry of prescribed period of filing of objection in terms of the Notification dated 09.01.2014, the petitioner company, on 24.02.2014 filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh with a contention that the areas of land, belonging to the petitioner company, more particularly, 51 Nos. of Dags included in the schedule of the Notification dated 09.01.2014, should be excluded from the operation of the Notification dated 09.01.2014 and also from the coverage of proposed Namrup Town Committee under the Act, 1956. Unfortunately, such representation was filed by the petitioner company beyond the stipulated period of time as prescribed in the Notification dated 09.01.2014, i.e., beyond 20.02.2014.

¶32

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently, on 13.11.2014, the petitioner company filed another representation assailing the final Notification dated 01.03.2014, primarily on the ground that such Notification has been issued in violation of Article 243Q of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that the Municipalities may exclude Industrial Township and therefore, the area, more particularly, 51 Nos. of Dags belonging to the petitioner company within a Industrial Township is not tenable. Second ground of such challenge is that the objection of the petitioner company was not considered before issuance of the Notification. It is their further contention that

¶33

Page No.# 4/5

¶34

though subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh considered the representation filed by the petitioner company on 13.11.2014 and the Circle Officer, Naharkatia Revenue Circle, Naharkatia, was asked to submit a report and though a Speaking Order was passed, however, such Speaking Order does not reflect any reason for rejection of the objection filed by the petitioner company.

¶35

6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Perused the materials available on record.

¶36

7. Section 334 of the Act, 1956, under Chapter XII, empowers the State Government to declare its intention, by way of a Notification, relating to all of the matters upon which a municipal fund may be expended under Section 60, improve arrangements etc. as required within a specified area and to seek objection.

¶37

8. Sub-Section 3 of Section 334 of the Act, 1956 prescribes that any inhabitant of the specified area under the Notification issued under Section 334 (1) shall have a right to submit his/her objection in writing to the State Government through the concerned Deputy Commissioner within 6 (six) weeks from the date of its publication and the State Government is mandated to take objection into consideration.

¶38

9. Sub-Section 4 of Section 334 of the Act, 1956 prescribes that after expiry of 6 (six) weeks from the date of publication of the Notification, the State Government may declare the specified area to be included within such municipal area, by way of a Notification, after considering the objection, if any.

¶39

10. In the case in hand, admittedly, the objection was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh after expiry of the aforesaid 6 (six) weeks. That being the position, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the Notification dated 01.03.2014 issued under Sub-Section 4 of Section 334 of the Act, 1956, only on the ground that the petitioner company filed objection beyond the stipulated period of time, was not considered. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this count, stand negated.

¶40

11. Now coming to filing of the representation before the Deputy Commissioner,

¶41

Page No.# 5/5

¶42

Dibrugarh on 13.11.2014, this Court is of the considered opinion that under the Scheme of the Act, 1956, the Deputy Commissioner is vested with no power and jurisdiction to entertain such an application or to make an enquiry, more particularly, under Section 334 of the Act, 1956 through the Circle Officer Under Sub-Section 1 of Section 334 of the Act, 1956, the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District is only empowered to receive objection within the stipulated period of time and forward the same to the Governor of Assam for its consideration.

¶43

12. That being the position, no right is accrued upon the petitioner company to assail the Notification on the ground that subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh took note of the objection of the petitioner and made an enquiry and subsequently, the Speaking Order was passed.

¶44

13. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, no relief can be granted by this Court to the petitioner in exercise of its power of judicial review, accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

The Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited v. the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited v. the Union of India and 8 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

Roushanara Begum Sadoil Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Jaya Chandra Dey and Anr. Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Md. Mustafa Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

M/S Padmavati Constgruction Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

On the Death of Atul Kumar Sarma,His Legal Heirs Vs the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and 3 Ors.

Pradip Sharma and 3 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.