JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. C.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati Municipal Corporation (GMC), appearing for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 as well Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Khound, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 (GMDA). 2. The brief facts of the case, as apparent from the record, is that the writ petitioner is a society registered under the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 2007 and its members are engaged in the wholesale fish business. The members of the petitioner society were earlier running their wholesale fish business from the Paltanbazar area which was commonly known as “Paltanbazar Wholesale Market”. However, since the market at Palatanbazar had become very congested and was lacking the basic amenities, a decision was taken by the authorities to shift the wholesale fish market to the outskirt of the city of Guwahati. Accordingly, the State Government of Assam had allotted a plot of land measuring 3 Bighas located at Betkuchi, Beltola to the respondent no. 2 for shifting the wholesale fish market whereafter, the respondent no. 2 had constructed a wholesale fish market therein consisting of 4 (four) sheds having 58 (fifty eight) stalls. The stalls were then allotted to the members of the petitioner society who are presently operating their wholesale fish business there-from. According to the petitioner, the original construction plan had envisaged 50% vacant land within the market complex which was meant to be kept reserved for parking of vehicles, installation of Cold Storages and for other ancillary purposes. However, recently the respondent no. 2 has started additional construction of another 51 Nos. of new stalls in 5 (five) Assam Type sheds over the vacant land, thereby encroaching upon the land earlier reserved for parking of vehicles and also for construction of cold storage facility. 3. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the additional construction of 51 sheds is not only being made in utter violation of the Building Bye Laws, but the same, if permitted, will also cover nearly 90% of the land thereby leaving no space either for proper parking facility or for providing other essential amenities such as cold storage etc without which a whole sale fish market cannot function. 4. The respondent nos 2 and 3 have filed a joint counter-affidavit denying the case of the petitioner. 4. The respondent nos 2 and 3 have filed a joint counter-affidavit denying the case of the petitioner. In their affidavit, the respondent nos 2 and 3 have inter-alia stated that there was never any proposal for construction of a cold storage as claimed by the petitioner and therefore, the question of reserving space for the said purpose does not arise. It has also been stated that even after completing the additional constructions, the parking area that will be available inside the complex would be far in excess of what is required under the Building Bye laws. 5. On a scrutiny of the pleadings brought on record, it is seen that one of the allegations raised by the writ petitioner is to the effect that the respondent GMC authorities are proposing to make the construction of additional sheds in violation of the Building Bye-laws. With a view to obtain necessary clarification in the matter, this Court had passed an order dated 05/01/2017 directing the respondent no. 5 to clarify as to whether the construction plan was required to be approved in terms of the Building Bye-laws and if so, whether the proposed construction is being raised after obtaining necessary construction “NOC” from the competent authority. In compliance of the order of this court, the Town Planner of the GMDA had filed an affidavit on 06/02/2017. The statements made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said affidavit would be relevant and are extracted herein below for ready reference:- “3. That under the provisions of New Revised Building Bye Laws for Guwahati Metropolitan Area, 2006 and the Guwahati Building Construction (Regulations) Bye Laws, 2014 permission has to be obtained before making any constructions and under the Building Bye Laws of 2006 both Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) and Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) are independently competent authorities to issue such Building Permission. 4. That it is stated that no Building Permission and Planning permit has been issued by the GMDA, for the wholesale fish market which is situated at Betkuchi Village, under Dag No. 838 (Old)/1703 (New) under the provisions of Building Byelaws of 2006 and Guwahati Building Construction (Regulation) Byelaws, 2014, respectively.” 6. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have not denied the averment made in the affidavit dated 06-02-2017 filed on behalf of the respondent no 5. Mr. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have not denied the averment made in the affidavit dated 06-02-2017 filed on behalf of the respondent no 5. Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GMC has also fairly submitted that the construction of the wholesale fish market has to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Guwahati Building Construction (Regulation) Byelaws, 2014 but in the present case, no such approved construction plan is available. The learned standing counsel, however, submits that it is for the respondents to decide on the layout of construction plan and the petitioners cannot be allowed to have any say in the matter. 7. From a bare reading of the statements made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no 5, it is evident that the proposed construction of the whole sale fish market including the additional sheds will have to be made in compliance of the Building Bye Laws but it is the admitted position of fact that no such approved site plan is available with the respondent no 2. It is not the case of the respondent no 2 and 3 that the Building Bye Laws are not binding upon the GMC authorities. If that be so, it is obvious that an approved site plan complying with the provisions of the Bye Laws will first have to be prepared by the respondent no. 2 before proceeding with further construction of the additional sheds. 8. Coming to the next issue regarding maintenance of proper parking space and construction of cold storage facilities, what needs to be noted here-in is that the proposed construction is admittedly being raised by the respondent no 2 with its own resources over a plot of land allotted by the Government. Therefore, subject to the provisions of the Building Bye laws, it will be the prerogative of the respondent no. 2 to decide on the design and layout of the proposed construction as well as the amenities that are to be provided to the occupants of the outlets and the members of the petitioner society cannot be permitted to dictate the terms thereof. 2 to decide on the design and layout of the proposed construction as well as the amenities that are to be provided to the occupants of the outlets and the members of the petitioner society cannot be permitted to dictate the terms thereof. But at the same time, it must also been borne in mind that the respondent no 2 being a statutory authority entrusted with the responsibilities of providing proper civic amenities to the residents living and/or operating their business establishments within the corporation area cannot turn a deaf ear to the genuine and reasonable grievances of the citizens. 9. In the context of the issues raised in the writ petition, the requests for providing adequate parking space and cold storage facility within the wholesale market area, as made by the petitioner society, in the opinion of this court, cannot be termed as unreasonable as the same have a reasonable nexus with the long term objective of setting up the wholesale fish market in that area. Besides the above, it is also obligatory on the part of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to ensure maintenance of cleanliness and proper health and hygiene in and around the market complex which should be free from pollution. Such issues are of general public importance, and therefore, in the opinion of this court, must receive due consideration at the hands of the competent authorities before taking a final decision on the question of design and layout of the construction plan. 10. In the case of Mohd. Murtaza and others (Supra), the wholesale Vegetable and Fruit vendors of this city had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the order of this Court directing them to vacate their respective possession of the premises situated close to the Railway Station and inside the city. Taking note of the grievance of the petitioners therein, the Supreme Court was of the view that the wholesale market of Fruits and Vegetables should be relocated at the outskirt or outside the city limits of Guwahati so as to avoid problems of traffic congestion, health and hygiene and pollution etc. and accordingly a direction was issued to the Wholesale Traders to shift the wholesale market outside the city limits of Guwahati. and accordingly a direction was issued to the Wholesale Traders to shift the wholesale market outside the city limits of Guwahati. While issuing the said direction, the Supreme Court had laid down certain guidelines at paragraph 19 to be followed while making the constructions, which are quoted here-in-below for ready reference :- “19. If the markets are not constructed yet, they will be constructed by the Government, the municipalities and other authorities in consultation with the representatives of the wholesale traders of Gauhati and allotments made within a period of one year from today. For this purpose a Committee shall be set up under the Chairmanship of the Secretary concerned of the Government of Assam and having members from the representatives of the Gauhati Municipality and other authorities, and also representatives of the associations of wholesalers of fruits and vegetables and grains etc. as well as representatives from the Electricity Department, Water Department, Telephone Department, Police etc. This Committee shall form a rational plan for allotment of the existing wholesale markets inside Gauhati city to the new wholesale market (which will be constructed, if has not already been constructed).” 11. By referring to the aforesaid observations made by the Supreme Court, Mr. Sharma submits that since the decision to shift the wholesale fish market has also been taken by the GMC authorities in the light of the decision in the case of Mohd. Murtaza and others (Supra), the respondents ought to have resorted to a similar consultative process involving the representatives of the petitioner society before constructing the whole sale fish market. However, submits Mr. Sharma, not to speak of consulting the petitioner, even the representation made by it highlighting the above grievances have not been considered by the respondent no. 2 till date. 12. From a careful reading of the judgment rendered in the case of Mohd. Murtaza (supra) I find that although the issue there-in was pertaining to shifting of the vegetable and fruit whole sale market to the out skirts of the city, yet, having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case, the guide lines laid down at paragraph 19 of the said decision, in my opinion, would be squarely applicable to the present case as well. The petitioner society, being the end user and one of the important stake holder, its representatives ought to have been consulted by the respondent no 2 before starting the construction work so as to work out a rational site plan having a futuristic projection. I, therefore, find sufficient force in the submission made by Mr. Sharma on the above point. 13. In the light of the discussions made above, this court is of the opinion that since the construction of the additional sheds are yet to be made, a consultative process in the line of the guidelines laid down in the case of Mohd. Murtaza (supra) is required to be adopted in this case as well. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the Secretary, Government of Assam, Guwahati Development Department (GDD) to convene a meeting of all the stake holders including the representatives of the petitioner society, within 30 (thirty) days from today, so as to discuss the issues raised above and thereafter take appropriate decision in the matter. The minutes of the meeting be recorded in writing. In the meantime, the respondent nos 2 and 3 may also take steps for obtaining the approved site/building plan and also the construction “NoC” of the wholesale fish market complex as per the requirement of the relevant Building Bye Laws. It is made clear that although both the GMC and the GMDA authorities have been stated to have concurrent jurisdiction in the matter of issuance of construction NoC, yet, considering the fact that the construction in question is sought to be raised by the GMC, the “competent authority” for the purpose of the Building Bye Laws in the present case shall be the respondent no 5. Until such time the exercise, as directed above is completed, construction of the proposed additional sheds in the whole sale fish market at Betkuchi shall remain suspended. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. S. Bora, the learned standing counsel GMC for necessary compliance.