Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1615 (GAU)

New Weekly Hut of Bashmura v. State of Assam

2025-09-24

DEVASHIS BARUAH

body2025
JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. KN Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. R Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in WP(C)No.237/2025. Mr. P Borah, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. A Neog, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner i.e. Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat in WP(C)No.5157/2025. Mr. S Dutta, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the P & RD Department. Ms. BS Goyal, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the writ petitioner in WP(C)No.3389/2025 and Ms. U Das, the learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate who appears on behalf of the District Administration. 2. The three writ petitions being WP(C)No.237/2025, WP(C)No.3389/2025 and WP(C)No.5157/2025 are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment and order in view of the fact that the issues involved in all the three writ petitions pertain to as to who has the right to run the cattle market i.e. Gournagar Damribhasha Bridge Tiniali Pashuhat on Friday. 3. It is relevant to take note of that in WP(C)No.237/2025, the petitioners therein had challenged the order dated 07.08.2024 passed by the District Commissioner, Goalpara and further the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, P & RD Department. 4. Pursuant to the challenge made by filing the writ petition being WP(C)No.237/2025, the District Development Commissioner, Goalpara had passed an order on 30.05.2025 whereby the petitioners in WP(C)No.237/2025 were accorded the permission to reopen the Gournagar Damribhasha Bridge Tiniali Pashuhat on Friday subject to fulfilling certain conditions. This order dated 30.05.2025 has been assailed by the writ petitioner in WP(C)No.3389/2025. During the pendency of the said two writ petitions being WP(C)No.237/2025 and WP(C)No.3389/2025, the Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat filed another writ petition being WP(C)No.5157/2025 challenging the said order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the District Development Commissioner, Goalpara. In the backdrop of the above prelude, the facts are elaborated hereinunder: 5. The petitioners in WP(C)No.237/2025 contend that there was no cattle market within a radius of 12 Kilometers of village Damribhasha within the Katarihara Gaon Panchayat (for short, the Gaon Pachayat) under the Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat for which the local people of the village faced considerable problems to sell and purchase their domestic animals. 6. The petitioners in WP(C)No.237/2025 contend that there was no cattle market within a radius of 12 Kilometers of village Damribhasha within the Katarihara Gaon Panchayat (for short, the Gaon Pachayat) under the Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat for which the local people of the village faced considerable problems to sell and purchase their domestic animals. 6. The petitioners in WP(C)No.237/2025 further contends that the said petitioners established a private cattle market namely “Gournagar Damribhasha Bridge Tiniali Pashuhat” (hereinafter to be referred to as “the market in question”) over the patta land of the petitioners admeasuring 5 bighas 3 kathas 7 lechas in the month of December, 2013 under the Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat in the Goalpara district. The said market in question was held on every Fridays’ of the week through a Managing Committee of the market. 7. On 25.10.2024, a new Managing Committee was constituted consisting with one Abbas Ali as President and Aminul Islam as the Secretary. On 22.05.2014, the Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for settlement of the petitioners’ private cattle market and subsequent thereto the Chief Executive Officer of the Goalpara Zilla Parishad vide the order dated 01.07.2014 settled the petitioners’ cattle market with a third party. Subsequent thereto, the District Commissioner, Goalpara in terms with the Minutes adopted in the meeting held on 27.05.2014 suggested that the Chataimari market (Government Market) be permitted to run on Thursdays and the petitioners’ private cattle market to run on Tuesdays instead of Fridays as there was a dispute to holding of both these markets on Friday. 8. The petitioners in WP(C)No.237/2025 challenged the NIT dated 22.05.2014 issued by the Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat; the Minutes of the meeting dated 27.05.2014 and the order of settlement dated 01.07.2014 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Goalpara Zilla Parishad before this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C)No.5089/2014. The beneficiary of the said settlement order dated 01.07.2014 also filed a writ petition being WP(C)No.3795/2014 with a prayer to allow him to operate the petitioners’ private cattle market. 9. This Court vide the judgment and order dated 10.03.2015 disposed of the writ petition being WP(C)No.5089/2014 by setting aside the order of settlement dated 01.07.2014. The beneficiary of the said settlement order dated 01.07.2014 also filed a writ petition being WP(C)No.3795/2014 with a prayer to allow him to operate the petitioners’ private cattle market. 9. This Court vide the judgment and order dated 10.03.2015 disposed of the writ petition being WP(C)No.5089/2014 by setting aside the order of settlement dated 01.07.2014. The beneficiary of the settlement order dated 01.07.2014 preferred an appeal being Writ Appeal No.69/2015 before the learned Division Bench of this Court and the said Writ Appeal was dismissed vide the order dated 07.04.2015. 10. It is further relevant to take note of that the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act of 2021’) was enacted and the same came into force on 16.09.2021. Pursuant to the enactment of the said Act of 2021, the petitioners in WP(C)No.237/2025 were directed to furnish copy of the license/certificate issued by any authority to run and operate the private cattle market. The petitioners thereupon submitted the order dated 10.03.2015 passed in WP(C)No.5089/2014; copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 27.05.2014 signed by the District Commissioner, Goalpara; copies of the local tax paying receipts etc. to the Additional District Commissioner with a forwarding letter dated 12.10.2022. The petitioners had also submitted a representation on 19.10.2022 before the District Commissioner, Goalpara seeking necessary permission/license, if required to run and operate the cattle market in the greater interest of the local public. 11. The District Commissioner Goalpara granted the ‘No Objection Certificate’ dated 17.03.2023 to the petitioners for running of the private cattle market, however, subject to compliance of the terms and conditions stated therein. 12. While the petitioners in WP(C)No.237/2021 continued to run the cattle market, the Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat along with the President filed a writ petition being WP(C)No.2628/2023 before this Court challenging the provisions of the Act of 2021 and the Notification dated 25.07.2022 issued under the said Act of 2021. The said writ petition being WP(C)No.2628/2023, however, is pending as stated at the Bar. 13. The said writ petition being WP(C)No.2628/2023, however, is pending as stated at the Bar. 13. The writ petitioners in WP(C) No.237/2025 further averred that upon a complaint filed by the President of Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat, a report was submitted by the Officer In-charge of Lakhipur Police Station behind the back of the petitioners and basing upon the said report, the District Commissioner, Goalpara held that the cattle market run by the petitioners was illegal having no valid document to set up a market. On the basis thereof, the District Commissioner Goalpara passed an order dated 20.10.2023 directing the Superintendent of Police. Goalpara to stop the cattle market immediately which the petitioners alleged that the same was done without any giving any show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing. 14. The petitioners in WP(C) No. 237/2025 further averred in the writ petition that they had submitted a representation on 27.02.2024 along with the ‘No Objection Certificate’ dated 17.03.2023 issued earlier and the District Commissioner, Goalpara, vide the order dated 18.03.2024 allowed the petitioners to continue the normal function of the market in question by vacating the order dated 20.10.2023. The petitioners further averred that the petitioners have paid taxes to the Gaon Panchayat from the date of its establishment till 30.11.2019. The District Development Commissioner, Goalpara vide a letter dated 29.06.2024 requested the President/Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to take necessary action to collect revenue from the petitioner's cattle market in accordance with the extant Act/Rules and it is the case of the petitioners in WP(C)No.237/2025 that the petitioners have duly paid all revenue till 30.06.2025. 15. The dispute arises in the instant proceedings on account of an order passed by the District Commissioner, Goalpara thereafter on the 07.08.2024, at the instance of the local MLA 39 Jaleswar LAC whereby directions were issued to the Petitioners in WP(C)No.237/2025 to run the market in question either on every Monday or Wednesday or as per their choice except Friday and a market in the name and style of Bashmura Pashuhat was allowed to run on every Friday. 16. The petitioners in WP(C)No.237/2025 being aggrieved with the order dated 07.08.2024 passed by the District Commissioner, Goalpara approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.4139/2024. 16. The petitioners in WP(C)No.237/2025 being aggrieved with the order dated 07.08.2024 passed by the District Commissioner, Goalpara approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.4139/2024. This Court vide an order dated 21.08.2024 disposed of the writ petition being WP(C) No.4139/2024 by passing certain directions that the petitioners should seek compliance to Section 107 of the ASSAM PANCHAYAT ACT , 1994 (for short ‘the Act of 1994’) as was amended by the Assam Panchayat (Amendment) Act, 2023 (for short, ‘the Amending Act of 2023’). Paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the said order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench in WP(C) No.4139/2024 being relevant is reproduced hereinunder: “7. Section 107 of the amended ASSAM PANCHAYAT ACT , 1994 requires prior approval of the Gaon Panchayat Authority and the Government for running a private market. Apparently, the approval of the Gaon Panchayat Authority has been obtained, in view of the licence dated 08.07.2024 issued by the Gaon Panchayat Authority, allowing the running of the private market by the petitioners from 01.07.2024 to 30.06.2025. However, the petitioners have not taken the approval of the Government, in terms of Section 107 of the amended ASSAM PANCHAYAT ACT , 1994. As such, this Court is of the view that the petitioners would have to obtain the approval of the Government for running the private market. 8. Keeping in view Section 107 of the amended ASSAM PANCHAYAT ACT , 1994, the petitioners are given the liberty to submit an application before the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, P & R D Department, seeking approval to run the private market. The petitioners should file their application within a period of two days. Thereafter, the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, P & R D Department should take a decision on the same, within a further period of ten days, from the date of receipt of the petitioners’ application. The decision taken should be communicated immediately to the petitioners.” 17. On the basis of the said directions, the petitioners submitted an application on 22.08.2024 before the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department seeking approval under Section 107 of the Act of 1994 to run and operate the market in question on Friday of the week. On the basis of the said directions, the petitioners submitted an application on 22.08.2024 before the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department seeking approval under Section 107 of the Act of 1994 to run and operate the market in question on Friday of the week. Vide an order dated 30.09.2024, the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department rather than considering as to whether an approval is required to be granted or not, approved the order of the District Commissioner, Goalpara dated 07.08.2024. It is under such circumstances, WP(C) No.237/2025 was filed challenging both the orders dated 07.08.2024 and 30.09.2024 passed by the District Commissioner, Goalpara and the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department respectively. 18. The record reveals that this Court vide an order dated 29.01.2025 issued notice. During the pendency of WP(C) No. 237/2025, the District Development Commissioner, Goalpara issued an order dated 30.05.2025. A perusal of the said order reveals that upon receipt of another communication from the concerned MLA, 39 No. Jaleswar LAC dated 13.05.2025 and the report of the Circle Officer, Lakhipur Revenue Circle, permission was accorded to the petitioners in WP(C)No.237/2025 to reopen the market in question on Friday, subject to the conditions mentioned in the said order. The content of the order dated 30.05.2025 being relevant, is reproduced hereinunder: “GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER::GOALPARA (DEVELOPMENT BRANCH) ORDER In pursuance of the communication received from the Hon'ble MLA, 39 No. Jaleswar LAC vide letter No. AUM/347/25, dated 13-05-2025 and report of the Circle Officer, Lakhipur Revenue Circle vide No. GLCG/2022/MR/CI/1466, dated 28-05-2025, permission is hereby accorded to reopen the Gournagar Damribhasha Bridge Tiniali pashuhat on Friday with consideration of following conditions: 1. The Animal Market should be duly established as per provision of established Act/Law. 2. The Animal Market Committee shall issue proof of sale and purchase of Animal in Form G under Rule 10(2) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 in the purchaser and maintain proper record for inspection of the competent Authority. 3. A permit for transportation of cattle from the market issued by Veterinary Department in Form C under Rule 6(1)(3) of the Rules of Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 must be produced by the purchaser. 4. 3. A permit for transportation of cattle from the market issued by Veterinary Department in Form C under Rule 6(1)(3) of the Rules of Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 must be produced by the purchaser. 4. The sale or auction of the cattle must be for animal husbandry and agricultural purpose as per section 7(4) of Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021. Violation of any of the above conditions will invite immediate cancellation of the certificate of registration and attract punishment under relevant law. This has the approval of the District Commissioner, Goalpara. Sd/-illegible District Dev.Commissioner, Goalpara.” 19. The passing of the order dated 30.05.2025 by the District Development Commissioner, Goalpara led to the filing of WP(C) No.3389/2025 by the petitioners therein. 20. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to take note of who are the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3389/2025. The petitioner No. 1 is named and styled as ‘New Weekly Hat of Bashmura’ and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the President and Secretary respectively of the petitioner No. 1. It appears from the enclosures to WP(C)No.3389/2025, and more particularly, Annexure-C that one Moinuddin Sheikh had entered into a Lease Agreement with Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat whereby a plot of land ad measuring 2 Bighas was leased out to Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat for the purpose of running a market to be held on Friday of every week namely Bashmura Saptahik Bazar. 21. From a perusal of the contents of the writ petition being WP(C) No. 3389/2025, it appears that the petitioners therein have been allowed to run the Cattle Market by Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat, Katarihara on the said land, since April, 2023. The grievance of the petitioners in WP(C)No.3389/2025 is that by allowing the petitioners in WP(C) No.237/2025 to run the market in question vide the order dated 30.05.2025, the rights of the petitioners in WP(C) No.3389/2025 to operate the Cattle Market on Friday as permitted to be done by the Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat is affected inasmuch as the private Cattle Market in question of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 237/2025, is situated within a radius of less than 1 Km from the land, wherein the petitioners in WP(C) No.3389/2025 have been granted to run the Cattle Market. 22. 22. The petitioners in WP(C) No.3389/2025 though alleges various violations have been committed while issuing the order dated 30.05.2025, but the most pertinent question which arises, as to whether, the Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat could have permitted the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3389/2025 to run the Cattle Market in the manner in which it is sought to be granted. 23. This Court finds at this stage to take note of Section 105 of the Act of 1994, and more particularly, Sub-Section (1), which categorically mandates that all hats within the territorial jurisdiction of the Anchalik Panchayat shall be settled in the manner prescribed for a period co-inciding with, and not exceeding one Panchayat financial year by inviting tenders at the Office of the Anchalik Panchayat by the President. It is important at this stage to take note of that it is admitted by the petitioners in WP(C)No.3389/2025 that they have been running the cattle market since April, 2023. 24. This Court has duly perused the contents of the writ petition being WP(C) No.3389/2025 and has also enquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3389/2025, as to whether, the petitioners were settled with the Cattle Market in terms with Section 105 of the Act of 1994. Nothing could be shown that the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3389/2025 have been settled in the manner stipulated under Section 105 of the Act of 1994. This Court further is surprised to take note of that the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3389/2025 have been permitted to run the Cattle Market, since April 2023, i.e., for more than 2 (two) years, which on the face of it, is contrary to the Act of 1994. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3389/2025 have no conceivable right to challenge the order dated 30.05.2025, inasmuch as the petitioners would not come within the ambit of “person aggrieved” to have the locus to challenge the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the District Development Commissioner, Goalpara. 25. This Court further takes note of that upon the filing of WP(C) No. 3389/2025, this Court while issuing notice had stayed the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the District Development Commissioner, Goalpara. 26. 25. This Court further takes note of that upon the filing of WP(C) No. 3389/2025, this Court while issuing notice had stayed the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the District Development Commissioner, Goalpara. 26. While the writ petition being WP(C) No. 3389/2025 along with WP(C) No. 237/2025 were pending, the Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat filed WP(C) No. 5157/2025 challenging the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the District Development Commissioner, Goalpara. 27. In the backdrop of the above facts, let this Court now deal with the respective submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 28. Mr. KN Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners in WP(C)No.237/2025 submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 21.08.2024 in WP(C)No.4139/2024, the petitioners duly filed an application before the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam P & RD Department seeking approval in terms with Section 107 of the Act of 1994. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the P & R D Department could have approved the application or rejected the said application. But what the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the P & RD Department did was to uphold the order dated 07.08.2024 passed by the District Commissioner, Goalpara. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the District Commissioner, Goalpara had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 07.08.2024 inasmuch as, the District Commissioner Goalpara is not an authority envisaged in Section 107 of the Act of 1994 to grant the approval. 29. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the jurisdiction of the District Commissioner is only confined to the provisions of the Act of 2021, whereby the State Government vide the Notification dated 25.07.2022 which was published in the Assam Gazette on 27.07.2022 had delegated the powers under Section 10 of the Act of 2021 to the District Magistrate or his authorized representative as the designated competent authority. The learned Senior Counsel further referring to Annexure-6 enclosed to WP(C)No.237/2025 submitted that the District Commissioner Goalpara had given a ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the petitioners to run the animal market at Gournagar Damribhasha Bridge Tiniali Pashuhat for the purpose of sell or auction of the cattle subject to the compliance mentioned thereinunder. The learned Senior Counsel further referring to Annexure-6 enclosed to WP(C)No.237/2025 submitted that the District Commissioner Goalpara had given a ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the petitioners to run the animal market at Gournagar Damribhasha Bridge Tiniali Pashuhat for the purpose of sell or auction of the cattle subject to the compliance mentioned thereinunder. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that what was required to be considered by the Government of Assam in the P & RD Department was as to whether the approval could have been granted to the petitioners to run the cattle market in question. 30. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the P & RD Department failed to exercise the powers conferred upon him in terms with Section 107 of the Act of 1994 and, therefore, the orders dated 07.08.2024 and 30.09.2024 are required to be interfered with. 31. Per contra, Mr. P Bora, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat submitted that the District Development Commissioner could not have sat over the order passed by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the P & RD Department by issuing the order dated 30.05.2025. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in terms with Section 107 of the Act of 1994, the District Development Commissioner, Goalpara had no authority to grant the permission until and unless the approval is being granted by the concerned Panchayat authorities as well as the Government. He, therefore, submitted that the order dated 30.05.2025 is without jurisdiction and requires to be interfered with. 32. Ms. BS Goyal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in WP(C)No.3389/2025 though drawing the attention of this Court to the various provisions of the Act of 1994 submitted who would be the authority to grant permission to run the private market. But on a specific query being made by this Court as regards the locus standi as well as the authority under which the petitioners in WP(C)No.3389/2025 have been permitted to run the market by the Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat, nothing could be shown in that regard. Analysis and Determination: 33. The law as regards running of private hats, ghats and Fisheries is stipulated in Section 107 of the Act of 1994 which being relevant is reproduced hereinunder: “107. Analysis and Determination: 33. The law as regards running of private hats, ghats and Fisheries is stipulated in Section 107 of the Act of 1994 which being relevant is reproduced hereinunder: “107. No private hats, ghats and fisheries shall be allowed to operate within the area under the jurisdiction of a Gaon Panchayat without prior approval of the concerned Panchayat authorities and Government. The Panchayat shall impose such fees as may be prescribed.” 34. From a perusal of the above-quoted provisions, it would transpire that no private hats, ghats and fisheries shall be allowed to operate within the area under the jurisdiction of the Gaon Panchayat without the prior approval of the concerned Panchayat authorities and the Government. Further to that, the Panchayat has been empowered to impose such fees as may be prescribed. Therefore, in order to run a private hat falling within the area under the jurisdiction of a Gaon Panchayat, it is the mandate of law that approval from the concerned Panchayat authorities and the Government have to be taken. Section 107 of the Act of 1994 though mentions prior approval from the Panchayat Authorities, but it is not clear from which Panchayat Authority such prior approval is required to be taken. Section 107 of the Act of 1994 stipulates that the Panchayat had been empowered to impose such fees as may be prescribed. 35. This Court further finds it very pertinent to take note of Section 25(3)(b) of the Act of 1994 which empowers a Gaon Panchayat to impose yearly tax on private hats and private fisheries. The prescription as required to be made in Section 107 of the Act of 1994 is available in the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules 2002 (for short, the Rules of 2002) and more particularly Rule 47(19) which stipulates that before the start of a financial year of the Panchayat, every Gaon Panchayat shall assess the private hats and ghats used for business purpose under their respective jurisdiction and prepare a list which shall further be intimated to the Government through the Zilla Parishad. Power has also been conferred by the proviso to Sub-Rule (19) of Rule 47 of the Rules of 2002 to fix a rate on each private hat and ghat used for business purposes on the basis of number of rooms or shops and volume of passengers using the ghats and same shall be included in the ByeLaws prepared by the Gaon Panchayats. Sub-Rule (19) of Rule 47 of the Rules of 2002 is reproduced hereinunder: “(19) Before the start of the financial year of the Panchayat, every Gaon Panchayat shall assess the private hats and ghats used for business purposes under their respective jurisdiction and prepare a list which shall further be intimated to the Government through the Zilla Parishad: Provided that the Gaon Panchayat shall fix a rate on each private hat and ghat used for business purposes on the basis of number of rooms or shops and volume of passengers using the ghats and the same shall be included in the ByeLaws prepared by the Gaon Panchayats.” 36. In the opinion of this Court, a conjoint reading of Section 107 read with Section 25(3)(b) and Sub-Rule (19) of Rule 47 of the Rules of 2002 makes it clear that the that the Panchayat authority from whom the prior approval is required to be taken would be the jurisdictional Gaon Panchayat. 37. In addition to that, in order to run a private hat, a prior approval has also to be taken from the Government, meaning thereby the Panchayat and Rural Development Department of the Government of Assam. 38. In the backdrop of the above, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of that the perusal of Section 107 of the Act of 1994 nowhere empowers the District Commissioner or the District Development Commissioner to grant any approval for operating a private hat. 39. Therefore, the order dated 07.08.2024 passed by the District Commissioner, Goalpara was on the face of it, without jurisdiction and authority. This Court further finds it pertinent also to take note of that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court by the order dated 21.08.2024 in WP(C)No.4139/2024 at paragraph Nos.7 and 8 (already quoted hereinabove) categorically permitted the petitioners in WP(C)No.237/2025 to seek approval from the Government by submitting an application before the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam P & RD Department. It surprises this Court to take note of that the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam P & RD Department instead of granting or refusing the approval, approved an order dated 07.08.2024 passed by the District Commissioner, Goalpara which as held above was without jurisdiction and authority. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Court that the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, P & RD Department completely failed to exercise its power conferred upon it by law, to accord or reject the approval. Accordingly, the order dated 30.09.2024 cannot be sustained in law. 40. This Court further finds it very pertinent to observe that a perusal of the contents of WP(C) No.5157/2025 would reveal that the Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat had taken a lease of a plot of land from one Mainuddin Sheikh for a period of 5(five) years for the purpose of running a market to be held on Friday of every week, namely Bashmura Saptahik Bazar and on the basis thereof, the Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat claims its right to set up a market. There is nothing on record to show such acquisition of rights over the land for the purpose of running of the weekly market to be held on Friday by way of lease was done so with the previous approval of the Government through Zilla Parishad as is required in terms with the proviso to Section 55 (1) of the Act of 1994. In addition to that, this Court further finds it also relevant to observe that the said lease deed dated 21.01.2023 which has been enclosed as Annexure-XII to WP(C) No.5157/2025 is for lease of an immovable property for a period of 5 years and the value of which is above Rs.100/-. In the opinion of this Court, such lease cannot confer any right over the Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat, unless the said lease Deed is registered in terms with Section 17(1) of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908. 41. This Court further is surprised at the manner in which the Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat had permitted the writ petitioners in WP(C) No.3389/2025 to run the Bashmura Saptahik Bazar since April 2023, that too, without any tender process which is contrary to Section 105 (1) of the Act of 1994. 41. This Court further is surprised at the manner in which the Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat had permitted the writ petitioners in WP(C) No.3389/2025 to run the Bashmura Saptahik Bazar since April 2023, that too, without any tender process which is contrary to Section 105 (1) of the Act of 1994. Such rights being conferred by the Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat to the writ petitioners in WP(C) No.3389/2025 being absolutely illegal and non est; no rights of the petitioners in WP(C)No.3389/2025 can be said to have been effected by the order dated 30.05.2025 issued by the District Development Commissioner, Goalpara. 42. Under such circumstances, the petitioners in WP(C)No. 3389/2025 have no conceivable right to question the order dated 30.05.2025 issued by the District Development Commissioner, Goalpara, for which, WP(C)No.3389/2025 is required to be dismissed. 43. Be that as it may, the Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat within whose jurisdiction, the private market of the petitioners in WP(C)No.237/2025 is allowed to be run vide the order dated 30.05.2025 would have the locus to challenge the said order dated 30.05.2025. 44. This Court further is of the opinion that as already stated above, Section 107 of the Act of 1994 only empowers the Panchayat authorities as well as the Government to grant the prior approval. The District Development Commissioner as well as the District Commissioner unless being empowered by the Government could not have granted the approval to the petitioners in WP(C)No.237/2025 to run the market in question, vide the order dated 30.05.2025 and as such, the order dated 30.05.2025 issued by the District Development Commissioner, Goalpara is required to be set aside and quashed. 45. Accordingly, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant batch of writ petitions with the following observation(s) and direction(s): (1) The order dated 07.08.2024 issued by the District Commissioner, Goalpara is set aside and quashed. (2) The order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam Panchayat and Rural Development Department is set aside and quashed. (3) The order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the District Development Commissioner, Goalpara with the approval of the District Commissioner, Goalpara is set aside and quashed. (4) WP(C)No.3389/2025 is dismissed on the ground that the petitioners therein have no locus standi to challenge the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the District Development Commissioner, Goalpara. (3) The order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the District Development Commissioner, Goalpara with the approval of the District Commissioner, Goalpara is set aside and quashed. (4) WP(C)No.3389/2025 is dismissed on the ground that the petitioners therein have no locus standi to challenge the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the District Development Commissioner, Goalpara. (5) This Court having set aside the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department directs the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department to again consider as to whether the application so submitted by the petitioners dated 22.08.2024 under Section 107 of the Act of 1994 seeking approval to run the private market can be granted approval or not. The same be considered within a period of 30(thirty) days from the date a certified copy of this judgment is served upon the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam in the P & RD Department. (6) The petitioners in WP(C)No.237/2025 have already been granted a ‘No Objection Certificate’ by the District Commissioner, Goalpara dated 17.03.2023 in terms with the Act of 2021 and the Rules framed thereinunder for setting up of the animal market at Gournagar Damribhasha Bridge Tiniali Pashuhat. Under such circumstances, the petitioners in WP(C)No.237/2025 shall be bound by the said ‘No Objection Certificate’ and the conditions mentioned therein. (7) The petitioners in WP(C)No.237/2025 shall also be required to obtain the prior approval from the Katarihara Gaon Panchayat i.e. the respondent No.7 in WP(C)No.237/2025 in terms with the mandate of Section 107 of the Act of 1994. (8) WP(C)No.237/2025 and WP(C) No.5157/2025 stand disposed of in terms of the above directions and WP(C) No.3389/2025 stands dismissed. (9) All interim order(s) stand vacated.