Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 130 (GAU)

Suruz Ali Choudhury v. State of Assam

2017-01-30

SUMAN SHYAM

body2017
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.4498/2014. Also heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners in WP(C) No.3536/2015. Mr. D. Nath, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appears for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 where as Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, learned counsel appears for respondent No.4 in WP(C) No. 4498 of 2014. In WP(C) No. 3536 of 2015 Mr. Nath appears for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 but none has entered appearance on behalf of for the respondent No.6. 2. Since both the writ petitions raises a common issue of public interest, hence, I propose to dispose of the same by this common order. 3. It appears that the Napam Daily Market situated at Korokani Napam village at Tezpur in the district of Sonitpur was earlier functioning from within the premises of Korokani Napam Jame Masjid. Subsequently, an order was issued by the authorities for shifting of the said market to a suitable place outside the Masjid premises. But since no concrete action was initiated for shifting the market, hence, the writ petition being WP(C) No. 4498 of 2014 was filed primarily seeking an order for shifting the daily market. 4. Mr. Tahbildar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 in WP(C) No. 4498 of 2014, submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, Napam Daily Market has already been shifted from inside the Masjid premises and has now been relocated on the side of the public road abutting the Masjid. In view of the above development, Mr. Dey, learned senior counsel, fairly submits that nothing survives in the writ petition filed by his client and the same can be closed. 5. At this stage, Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in WP(C) No.3536/2015, submits that his clients are aggrieved by the manner in which the aforementioned daily market is now being run from the road side thereby causing obstruction to the public who are using the road on regular basis. Mr. 5. At this stage, Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in WP(C) No.3536/2015, submits that his clients are aggrieved by the manner in which the aforementioned daily market is now being run from the road side thereby causing obstruction to the public who are using the road on regular basis. Mr. Biswas submits that there are sufficient alternative spaces available in and around the area for relocation of the market but the authorities have turned a deaf ear to the demand made by the petitioners to such effect and is arbitrarily permitting the market to function from a public road thereby causing serious inconvenience to the public at large. 6. Responding to the said submission Mr. Tahbildar submits that his client is considering the option of relocating the market at a suitable alternative location acceptable to all concerned and appropriate steps in that regard would be taken very soon. 7. Taking note of the said submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties both the writ petitions are hereby disposed of by directing the respondents, more particularly respondent No.4 [in WP(C) No.4498/2014] to take appropriate steps for shifting of the Napam Daily Market to a venue which is convenient to the public of that area and functioning of which would not create obstruction to any public road/masjid or other institution of public importance. The aforesaid exercise be carried out as expeditiously as possible but not later than a period of six months from today. 8. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.