JUDGMENT AND ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. M. H. Rajbarbhuiyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2; Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.3, 4 & 6 and Mr. R. P. Sarmah, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.5. 2. The dispute in the instant proceedings as would be seen from the materials on record is that in respect to four Stalls wherein licenses have been issued by the Silchar Municipal Board (as it then was) to the petitioner pertaining to the Stall Nos.7, 8, 9 & 10. It is alleged by the petitioner that on account of his illness, he allowed respondent No.5 to use it. However, the respondent No.5 did not handover the possession back when the petitioner wanted it, and as such, the dispute arose. The said dispute apparently is a dispute of a civil nature between the petitioner and the respondent No.5. Instead of approaching the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction, the petitioner approached the Chief Executive Officer of the Silchar Municipal Board and thereupon, an order dated 25.9.2019 was passed against the petitioner. Resultantly, the petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an Appeal which was also dismissed vide the order dated 10.10.2023, and as such, the present proceedings. 3. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. The question which arises pertains to the right of use of the Stall Nos.7, 8, 9 & 10 at Ithola Market between the petitioner and the respondent No.5. Such a dispute in the opinion of this Court neither the Chief Executive Officer nor even the Appellate Authority of the Silchar Municipal Board was not competent to decide. The petitioner would have been well advised to approach the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. 4. This Court enquired with Mr. M. H. Rajbarbhuiyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as to why the petitioner had approached the Silchar Municipal Board. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same was done on legal advice taking into account that the property belongs to the Silchar Municipal Board. 5. 4. This Court enquired with Mr. M. H. Rajbarbhuiyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as to why the petitioner had approached the Silchar Municipal Board. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same was done on legal advice taking into account that the property belongs to the Silchar Municipal Board. 5. It is the opinion of this Court that the Silchar Municipal Board would have been at best a party to the said dispute or even a witness but not an adjudicating authority in respect to a purely civil dispute which ought to have been adjudicated by a competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. 6. Taking into account the above, this Court interferes with the orders dated 25.09.2019 and 10.10.2023 impugned in the instant proceedings on the ground that the said Authorities did not have the competence to decide. However, if the petitioner wishes to recover the possession of the Stalls in question, the petitioner has to approach the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 8. The order passed in the instant writ petition shall not prejudice the petitioner, if the petitioner approaches the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction.