JUDGMENT : 1. Two groups of persons with conflicting interest have filed two writ petitions namely, WP(C)/5468/2019 & WP(C)/5419/2020 concerning the same subject. While the petitioners in the first case have alleged that in the subsistence of an allotment made pursuant to a selection process, a fresh process has been initiated. On the other hand, the petitioners in the other writ petition namely WP(C)/5419/2020 (hereinafter referred to as a second petition) have questioned the claim of the petitioners in the first case of being holders of subsisting lease in respect of the subject property and has rather prayed for finalization of the tender process initiated by the Algapur Gaon Panchayat. 2. To address the issues, it is necessary to put on record the facts of the cases in brief. 3. The petitioners in the first petition, who are 29 in numbers have approached this Court on the projection that they were selected for allotment of 29 numbers of shop rooms, which were constructed in the market area of Algapur Bazar under the jurisdiction of the Algapur Gaon Panchayat pursuant to a notice dated 13.11.2009. It is the case of the petitioners in the first case that whereas there were 53 numbers of participants out of which the petitioners were selected and lease deeds were executed amongst the petitioners and the President of the Gaon Panchayat on 01.09.2011. The grievance of the petitioners however is that in spite of execution of the lease deed, they were not handed over the possession for which the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C)/6397/2017. The aforesaid writ petition was however disposed of with another writ petition being WP(C)/6943/2017 wherein this Court had passed a common order dated 26.04.2018 remanding the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi to consider and pass necessary orders. As per the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi in pursuance to the aforesaid direction had caused an enquiry through the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar), Hailakandi, who in his report stated that the shop rooms were constructed by the money advanced by the petitioners. In the meantime, certain persons who have been arrayed as respondent nos. 9 to 13 in the first petition had approached this Court by filing WP(C)/436/2019 whereby interim direction was issued on 25.01.2019 directing the Secretary, Algapur Gaon Panchayat to issue tender notice for settlement of the Algapur Market including the 29 numbers of shop rooms. In the meantime, certain persons who have been arrayed as respondent nos. 9 to 13 in the first petition had approached this Court by filing WP(C)/436/2019 whereby interim direction was issued on 25.01.2019 directing the Secretary, Algapur Gaon Panchayat to issue tender notice for settlement of the Algapur Market including the 29 numbers of shop rooms. The aforesaid interim order was the subject matter of challenge in WA/38/2019 preferred by the present petitioners and the Hon'ble Division Bench had disposed of the appeal by directing the competent authority not to issue any possession orders to the successful parties without taking leave of the Single Bench adjudicating the writ petition, WP(C)/436/2019. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the tender notice was issued on 29.06.2019 and accordingly the said writ petition was disposed of vide an order dated 23.07.2019 as the same has become infructuous with however, liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed. 4. Juxtapositioned, as per the petitioners in WP(C)/5419/2020, it is alleged that as per an order dated 25.01.2019 passed by this Court in WP(C)/436/2019, the Secretary, Algapur Gaon Panchayat had issued a Notice Inviting Tender on 29.06.2019 for allotment of 29 numbers of shop rooms situated at the Algapur Bazar. The petitioners in the second case claim that such notice was issued in accordance with the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 and Rule 47 of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002. After publication of the said notice dated 29.06.2019, a number of persons including the petitioners in the second case had participated in the tender process, which was opened on 13.08.2019 at 2:00 P.M. On such opening, it was found that the petitioners were found to be successful bidders. It is the grievance of the petitioners that in spite of the clear direction of this Court followed by opening of the tenders, the process has not been completed and the shop rooms have not been allotted to the successful bidders and the entire issue has been kept pending for a long period of time. In this regard, a number of representations filed were also lying unheeded. Accordingly, the second writ petition has been filed to complete the process of the NIT which was initiated by the order dated 25.01.2019 of this Court in WP(C)/436/2019 pursuant to which NIT dated 29.06.2019 was issued. 5. In this regard, a number of representations filed were also lying unheeded. Accordingly, the second writ petition has been filed to complete the process of the NIT which was initiated by the order dated 25.01.2019 of this Court in WP(C)/436/2019 pursuant to which NIT dated 29.06.2019 was issued. 5. I have heard Shri MK Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri MJ Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioners in the first writ petition namely WP(C)/5468/2019 whereas the petitioners in the second writ petition namely WP(C)/5419/2020 is represented by Shri RA Choudhury, learned counsel. The Department of Panchayat and Rural Development Department is represented by Shri N.K. Dev Nath, learned Standing Counsel whereas for the private respondent nos. 10 to 13 in the first writ petition, Shri BD Das, learned Senior Counsel appears, who is assisted by Shri HI Choudhury, learned counsel. Shri KP Pathak, learned counsel is present for the President of the Algapur Gaon Panchayat, who is a party respondent. 6. The materials placed before this Court have also been carefully examined. 7. Shri MK Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the first writ petition has submitted that in the year 2009, pursuant to an allotment process in which 53 numbers of bidders have participated, 29 were selected who are the petitioners. It is submitted that for such allotment, a consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) each was taken with an additional Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) for the shutters. The learned Senior Counsel submits that lease deeds were also executed. However, as the possession was not handed over, they had earlier filed a writ petition being WP(C)/6397/2017 in which an order was passed on 30.10.2017 whereby notice was issued and an observation was made that the Algapur Gaon Panchayat was at liberty to handover possession of the shop rooms to the petitioners but should not induct any third party. 8. On the other hand, WP(C)/436/2019 was instituted in which this Court vide an order dated 25.01.2019 had observed that the Secretary, Algapur Gaon Panchayat may issue tender notice for settlement of the 29 numbers of shop rooms. 8. On the other hand, WP(C)/436/2019 was instituted in which this Court vide an order dated 25.01.2019 had observed that the Secretary, Algapur Gaon Panchayat may issue tender notice for settlement of the 29 numbers of shop rooms. In the writ appeal being WA/38/2019 preferred by the petitioners in the first case, the Hon'be Division Bench of this Court vide an order dated 11.02.2019 had disposed of the writ appeal by clarifying that in the tender process which was to be initiated pursuant to the liberty granted, all interested persons may be allowed to participate however, no orders be passed for allotment without taking leave of the learned Single Judge. The Hon'ble Division Bench had also observed that the writ petition itself can be taken up for final disposal. Pursuant to the same, NIT was issued by the Algapur Gaon Panchayat on 29.06.2019 and accordingly the WP(C)/436/2019 instituted by the petitioners in the second case was closed vide an order dated 23.07.2019 as being infructuous. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Choudhury submits that there being a concluded contract wherein a deed of lease was also executed between the parties for a consideration, the petitioners have a vested right to get the fruits of such concluded contract. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the first case has drawn the attention of this Court to the lease deeds as well as the payment receipts to justify their claim. 10. Percontra, Shri NK Dev Nath, learned Standing Counsel, P & RD Department submits that the records do not support the case of the petitioners in the first case. He submits that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners in the first case had undergone a selection process in which they were selected to be allotted the 29 numbers of rooms. He submits that the so called lease deeds are faulty in nature and cannot be executed and more particularly cannot be enforced against the Gaon Panchayat. The receipts of payment also do not indicate that those are considerations of the contract. By specifically drawing the attention of this Court to the second petition, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the agreements were already pre-matured and the so called considerations was donation which is reflected in the records. The receipts of payment also do not indicate that those are considerations of the contract. By specifically drawing the attention of this Court to the second petition, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the agreements were already pre-matured and the so called considerations was donation which is reflected in the records. By elaborating his submission, the learned counsel has submitted that the agreement is between the President and the parties and not with the Gaon Panchayat and the lease period is for 99 years which itself is most unreasonable. By drawing the attention of Section 24 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 dealing with the Gaon Panchayat funds, the receipts are meant for the Gaon Panchayat and the money received in the instant case have not been accounted for. 11. Shri BD Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents in the first case submits that in the final order dated 23.07.2019 passed in WP(C)/436/2019, the NIT has not been touched. He accordingly submits that the selection process being permitted by the Court, the same should be brought to a logical conclusion. 12. Shri KP Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the President of the Algapur Gaon Panchayat submits that the tender process which was initiated pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court should be allowed to be concluded. 13. Shri RA Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners in the second writ petition submits that pursuant to the NIT dated 29.06.2019, the petitioners had participated and were selected. However, because of the litigations, they have not given the allotment. 14. The rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 15. The claim of the petitioners in the first case is mainly on the assertion that there was a previous selection process in which they were selected for allotments to the 29 numbers of shop rooms, pursuant to which lease deeds were executed and considerations paid and therefore there being a concluded contract, the fruits of the same should be permitted to be enjoyed by the petitioners. To examine the said claim, the materials placed before this Court have been carefully perused. There is nothing on record to show that there was any recognized mode of selection process in which the petitioners in the first case were selected. To examine the said claim, the materials placed before this Court have been carefully perused. There is nothing on record to show that there was any recognized mode of selection process in which the petitioners in the first case were selected. Even if benefit of doubt is given to the petitioners in the first case, a copy of the so called lease deed would show that it is not even executed by the Algapur Gaon Panchayat but by its President. The amount of consideration said to have been paid are tried to be supported with receipts. The receipts however clearly show that the amounts are donation and not for any considerations. Even if further benefit of doubt is given, the lease for the rooms are for unreasonably long period of 99 years with a meager amount of rent which is wholly against the principles governing the field of distribution of State largesse. Even in a given case of there being a validly executed contract, the petitioners are barred in law to seek specific enforcement as remedy lies in the form of payment of compensation if a case at all can be made out. 16. This Court has further noticed that by the developments taking place from time to time and by the sequence of events, the claim of the petitioners in the first case has almost become infructuous as a fresh tender process was initiated in terms of the liberty granted by this Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench in the first round of litigation before it had also made observations which should have been a binding affect on the parties. 17. This Court is also of the opinion that in the present lis there are number of questions of facts and issues which are disputed and those questions of facts include statements made on the basis of present knowledge. It is trite law that a Writ Court is not a Court of facts, that too which are disputed in nature as a Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not have the avenues or scope for adducing evidence and appreciating the same. 18. It is trite law that a Writ Court is not a Court of facts, that too which are disputed in nature as a Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not have the avenues or scope for adducing evidence and appreciating the same. 18. This Court having held that the petitioners in the first case have failed to make out any case for intervention, the consequential direction is to complete the tender process initiated by the notice dated 29.06.2019 and make the allotments to the selected candidates strictly in accordance with law. 19. Accordingly, the WP(C)/5468/2019 stands dismissed and the WP(C)/5419/2020 stands allowed. 20. No order as to cost.