HALIRAMDAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The extension of lease made in favour of respondent No. 4, namely Sri Budheswar Das, in respect of Gohpur Weekly (Sunday) Market is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The material facts, which gave rise to the present writ petition, may in a nut-shell, be stated as follows: The Gohpur Weekly (Sunday) Market, (hereinafter reffered to as "the said market"), falls under the Gohpur Town Committee. The lease of the said market was granted by respondent No. 3 in favour of respondent No. 4 for a period of one year commencing from 1.4.2002 and ending on 31.3.2003. As the period of lease, so granted, was coming to an end, a notice inviting tender, (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter called "NIT" ), dated 13.2.2003 for settlement of the said market was published fixing 6.3.2003 as the last date for submission of tender. Pursuant to the NIT, the petitioner, amongst others, submitted his tender seeking grant of settlement of the said market. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 4 made an application to respondent No. 2, namely Director of Municipal Administration, seeking extension of his lease period. This application was sent by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3, namely, Gohpur Town Committee. As the Gohpur Town Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the Town Committee") was under supersession in terms of Section 299 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, its Executive Officer, with reference to the said application for extension made by the respondent No. 4, sent a letter, dated 24.2.2003, addressed to the respondent No. 2, giving a proposal for extension of lease of the said market in favour of the respondent No. 4 for a further period of one year, i.e., upto 31.3.2004 by increasing certain percentage of the Government amount of value of Rs. 13,90,057/- fixed in respect of the said market. Acting upon this proposal, the respondent No.2, vide letter, dated 25.2.2003, approved the extension of the said lease from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 at 2% above the last lease amount of the market, whereupon the respondent No.3 published a notice, dated 28.2.2003, cancelling the process for settlement of the said market, which was initiated by the NIT aforementioned. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) I have perused the materials on record. I have heard Mr. BD Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. D, Goswami, learned Additional Senior Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, and Mr. KN Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the private- respondent No. 4.