Disposed¶31

Mintu Ali v. the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Gauhati HC16 Jul 2026WP(C)/324/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mintu Ali v. State of Assam; WP(C)/324/2026; Gauhati High Court; Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.; 17.07.2026; parghat settlement dispute; MilparaTapabori-Kalajal-Mora Nadi Par Ghat; Inland Water Transport Department settlement dated 30.08.2024; Hajo Anchalik Panchayat and Kamrup Zila Parishad settlement dated 16.12.2025 in favour of Muzaffar Ali (respondent no. 10); jurisdiction of IWT vs Panchayat; impugned settlement ended 30.06.2026; issue rendered academic; writ petition closed, question left open; interim order vacated.

What did the court decide?

Since the impugned settlement dated 16.12.2025 in favour of respondent no. 10 came to an end on 30.06.2026, adjudication of the jurisdictional issue raised in the writ petition has been rendered merely academic. ¶27

Mintu Ali Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010010632026

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/324/2026

¶6

MINTU ALI

¶7

S/O-MAJIBUR RAHMAN, R/O-VILL-SAPKATA ,P.O AND P.S- MUKALMUA, DISTRICT- NALBARI,ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF ASSAM, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, ASSAM.

¶10

2:THE SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06

¶11

3:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06.

¶12

4:THE DIRECTOR INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI 781007 ASSAM.

¶13

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DIVISION ULUBARI ASSAM PIN 781007

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

6:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KAMRUP ZILLA PARISHAD AMINGAON ASSAM 7:THE HAJO ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT HAJO ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT HAJO KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶16

8:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM SECRETARY HAJO ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT HAJO KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶17

9:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HAJO DEVELOPMENT BLOCK HAJO KAMRUP ASSAM. 10:MUZAFFAR ALI SON OF LATE BADSHA ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BANGALPARA P.O. TAPABARI P.S. HAJO PIN-781102 DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSA

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K MOHAMMED, MR K J HAZARIKA,MR. R B PHOOKAN,MR. S M MUNIR

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IWT, S K LAHAN(R10),D GOGOI(R10),MR. R SARMA(R10),SC, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, ASSAM,SC, P AND R.D.

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶22

ORDER

¶23

17.07.2026

¶24

Heard Shri R. B. Phookan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri K. Kohammed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. D. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department; Shri S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD and Shri R. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 10.

¶25

As per the facts projected, the petitioner was settled with the MilparaTapabori-Kalajal-Mora Nadi Par Ghat by the Inland Water Transport Department vide an order dated 30.08.2024 which was upto March 2026. In the meantime, the Hajo Anchalik Panchayat and the Kamrup Zila Parishad had issued a settlement order for the same Parghat vide an order dated 16.12.2025 in favour of the respondent no. 10. The primary ground of challenge is on the aspect of jurisdiction. While the petitioner contends that it is the IWT which will have the jurisdiction to settle the Parghat and is also supported by the Transport Department, the Panchayat Department submits that such contention cannot be readily inferred in view of the powers and jurisdiction conferred by the Act upon the Panchayats.

¶26

It however transpires that the impugned settlement dated 16.12.2025 in favour of the respondent no. 10 has come to an end in 30.06.2026.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid development, this Court is of the opinion that the adjudication of the issue involved has been rendered mere academic.

¶28

In view of the same, writ petition is closed by leaving the question raised in

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

this petition open to be decided in an appropriate case.

¶31

Interim order passed stands vacated with the disposal of the writ petition.