Disposed

Shri Brikendra Basumatary Alias Bikendra Basumatary v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Jul 2026WP(C)/3569/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against a demolition order under Section 337(3) of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act passed without considering the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice. The court set aside the order and directed the Commissioner to consider the reply and pass a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 01.07.2026 under Section 337(3) set aside; Commissioner directed to consider petitioner's reply dated 22.06.2026 and pass a speaking order expeditiously.

Shri Brikendra Basumatary Alias Bikendra… — Municipal and Town Planning | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010140352026

2026:GAU-AS:9478

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/3569/2026

¶6

SHRI BRIKENDRA BASUMATARY ALIAS BIKENDRA BASUMATARY S/O. LATE HIRANYA BASUMATARY, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGERAMANPARA, KOKRAJHAR, P.O. AND P.S. KOKRAJHAR, DIST. KOKRAJHAR, B.T.C. ASSAM, PIN NO. 783370.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6

¶9

2:THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BETKUCHI

¶10

GUWAHATI -781036

¶11

3:THE COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BETKUCHI GUWAHATI- 781036

¶12

4:THE ASSISTANT TOWN PLANNER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BETKUCHI GUWAHATI-781036

¶13

5:SRI HRIKESH DAS HOUSE NO. 2 JAYANAGAR SIXMILE GUWAHATI KAMRUP(M

¶14

Page No.# 2/6

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : J U AHMED, MR. R K MUSHAHARY,MR. N K MURRY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS, SC, GMC

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

07.07.2026

¶19

1. Heard Mr. J.U. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam appearing for the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. S. Bora, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

¶20

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Shri Brikendra Basumatary @Bikendra Basumatary, impugning the order dated 01.07.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation (respondent No. 3) under Section 337 (3) of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971.

¶21

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of a plot of land measuring about 12 lechas, covered by Dag No. 2469 of KP Patta No. 828 under Revenue Village Dharandha Lot No.12, mouza Beltola under Revenue Circle, Dispur, subdivision Guwahati in the District of Kamrup(Metro), Assam. On the said plot of land, the petitioner has a residential building (RCC building), which the petitioner claims to have constructed after obtaining necessary approval from Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority as well as Guwahati Municipal

¶22

Page No.# 3/6

¶23

Corporation.

¶24

4. Mr. J.U. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had initially completed the construction of G plus 1 RCC building over the said plot of land and later on, he applied for permission for construction of second floor and after getting the said permission he constructed the same.

¶25

5. However, on 06.11.2025, the Chief Executive Officer, GMDA, Guwahati had issued a notice under Sections 87 and 88 of the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1985 against the petitioner for alleged violation of the provisions of Building Bye-Laws and the GMDA Act, 1985. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had submitted show-cause reply to the aforesaid notice.

¶26

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that later on, the petitioner also came to know that on 22.01.2026, the Guwahati Municipal Corporation issued a notice under Section 337 (1) and (2) of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 asking to remove or pull down the undertaken work of erection of the building of the petitioner at Six Mile. In the said order, it was contended that earlier notices were issued to the petitioner on 03.10.2025 and 22.01.2026, which the petitioner has contended that he never received.

¶27

7. Ultimately, the present petitioner approached this court by filing a writ petition which was registered as WP(C) No. 3208/2026. The said writ petition was allowed by a co-ordinate bench of this court on 19.06.2026, whereby the petitioner was allowed to submit his reply to the

¶28

Page No.# 4/6

¶29

show-cause notice dated 22.01.2026 under Section 337 (1) and(2) of the GMCA Act, 2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accordingly, on 22.06.2026, the petitioner submitted his reply to the showcause notice and same was received by the Office of the Commissioner, GMC, on 22.06.2026, however, without considering the reply given by the present petitioner, as was directed by this court, the Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation, by its letter No. GPL/CPGRAMS/178/2025/247 dated 01.07.2026 issued the order under Section 337 (3) of the GMC Act for demolition of the building of the writ petitioner. The said order has been impugned in this writ petition.

¶30

8. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that since the impugned order clearly indicates that the replies submitted by the present petitioner was not considered while passing the said order, it is bad in law as it has not only violated the principles of natural justice, but also the direction of this court, by its order dated 19.06.2026, passed in WP(C) No. 3208/2026.

¶31

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, thereafter, the petitioner also filed an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority under Section 438 of GMCA Act, 1971. However, the appellate authority has refused to accept the appeal of the petitioner. As such, having no other recourse left to him, he has approached this court for invoking its writ jurisdiction.

¶32

10. On the other hand, Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General, as well as Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, have fairly submitted that as this court, by its order dated

¶33

Page No.# 5/6

¶34

19.06.2026, passed in WP(C) No. 3208/2026 has categorically directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to file a reply to the notice dated 22.01.2026 and thereafter, after considering the reply of the petitioner, the respondent authorities shall pass a speaking order thereon. However, in the instant case, though the reply to the notice dated 22.01.2026 was submitted by the petitioner on 22.06.2026, as apparent from the record, same ought to have been considered by the Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation, Guwahati before passing the impugned order. As such, both the counsel, i.e., the learned Additional Advocate General as well as Mr. S. Borah as submitted that this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 3 to consider the reply submitted by the present petitioner against the notice dated 22.01.2026 and, thereafter, dispose of the matter by passing a speaking order thereon, in terms of the direction of this court in WP (C) No.3208/2026.

¶35

11. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and after going through the records, this court is of the considered opinion that the notice to respondent No. 5 may be waived in this case and this writ petition may be disposed of with direction to the respondent No. 3 to consider the reply to the show cause notice dated 22.01.2026 submitted by the present petitioner on 22.06.2026 and, thereafter, pass a speaking order thereon as expeditiously as possible.

¶36

12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.07.2026, passed under Section 337(3) of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, by the respondent No. 3 is hereby set aside and this writ petition is disposed of with above directions.

¶37

Page No.# 6/6

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Shri Brikendra Basumatary Alias Bikendra Basumatary v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Brikendra Basumatary Alias Bikendra Basumatary v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sakuntala Talukdar and 2 Ors.

Tulsi Gohain Vs Smti. Munmun Gohain and Anr.

Prababati Kalowar Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Ajay Paul Vs the State of Assam

Amit Kumar Tharad Vs the State of Assam

Moktarul Islam Alias Muktar Hussain and Anr. Vs the State of Assam