Narayan Chandra Roy and 12 Ors v. The State of Assam and 4 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010267362024 ooooooo 2024:GAU-AS:12812-DB ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oPIL/75/2024o

1.NARAYANoCHANDRAoROYoANDo12oORS.o S/OoLATEoNAKULoCHANDRAoROY, oR/AoVILL-oBADRIPAR,oP.O.-BADRIPAR,o P.S.-UDHARBAND,oDIST-oCACHAR,oASSAM,oPIN-788009 2:oSMTIoSAIRAoBEGUM oW/OoISLAMoUDDINoCHOWDHURY oR/AoVILL-oBADRIPARoP.O.-BADRIPARoP.S.-UDHARBANDo DIST-oCACHARoASSAMoPIN-788009 3:oNURULoISLAM oS/OoLATEoTAJoUDDIN oR/AoVILL-oBADRIPARoP.O.-BADRIPARoP.S.-UDHARBAND oDIST-oCACHARoASSAMoPIN-788009 4:oMAZIBARoRAHAMANoCHOUDHURY oS/OoLATEoIMAMoUDDINoCHOUDHURY oR/AoVILL-oBADRIPARoP.O.-BADRIPARoP.S.-UDHARBAND oDIST-oCACHARoASSAMoPIN-788009 5:oSHYAMALoKUMARoDAS oS/OoLATEoSANAToKUMARoDAS oR/AoVILL-oBADRIPARoP.O.-BADRIPARoP.S.-UDHARBAND oDIST-oCACHARoASSAMoPIN-788009 6:oAZADoAHMEDoCHOUDHURY oS/OoSAHAISoUDDINoCHOUDHURY oR/AoVILL-oBADRIPARoP.O.-BADRIPARoP.S.-UDHARBAND oDIST-oCACHARoASSAMoPIN-788009 7:oSMTIoRUPAoROY oS/OoSRIoSUSHANTAoROY oR/AoVILL-oBADRIPARoP.O.-BADRIPARoP.S.-UDHARBAND oDIST-oCACHARoASSAMoPIN-788009 PageoNo.#o2/4 8:oABDULoKHALIKoCHOUDHURY oS/OoLATEoABDULoMALIKoCHOUDHURY oR/AoVILL-oBADRIPARoP.O.-BADRIPARoP.S.-UDHARBAND oDIST-oCACHARoASSAMoPIN-788009 9:oCHANCHALoKUMARoDAS oS/OoLATEoKIRITIoCHANDRAoDAS oR/AoVILL-oBADRIPARoP.O.-BADRIPARoP.S.-UDHARBAND oDIST-oCACHARoASSAMoPIN-788009 10:oSUBENDYoKUMARoROY oS/OoLATEoSUSHILoCHANDRAoROY oR/AoVILL-oBADRIPARoP.O.-BADRIPARoP.S.-UDHARBAND oDIST-oCACHARoASSAMoPIN-788009 11:oMAZIBARoRAHAMANoCHOUDHURY oS/OoLATEoTONJAUoMIAoCHOUDHURY oR/AoVILL-oBADRIPARoP.O.-BADRIPARoP.S.-UDHARBAND oDIST-oCACHARoASSAMoPIN-788009 12:oSAHAJAHANoCHOUDHURY oS/OoLATEoSAMSURoJAMAL oR/AoVILL-oBADRIPARoP.O.-BADRIPARoP.S.-UDHARBAND oDIST-oCACHARoASSAMoPIN-78800o VERSUSo

1.THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo4oORS.o REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoADDITIONALoCHIEFoSECRETARYoTOoTHEo GOVERNMENToOFoASSAM,oPANCHAYAToANDoRURALoDEVELOPMENTo DEPARTMENT,oASSAMoSECRETARIAT,o DISPUR,oGUWAHATI,oASSAM,oPIN-781006 2:THEoADDITIONALoCHIEFoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVERNMENToOFoASSAM oPANCHAYAToANDoRURALoDEVELOPMENToDEPTT. oASSAMoSECRETARIAToDISPURoGUWAHATIoASSAMoPIN-781006 3:THEoDISTRICToLEVELoCOMMITTEE o(CONSTITUTEDoFORoRATIFYINGoBLOCKoBOUNDARIESoANDo RECOMMENDoDEMARCATIONoOFoTHEoBLOCKoBOUNDARIESoALONGo WITHoBLOCKoHQoTOoTHEoPANCHAYAToANDoRURALoDEVELOPMENTo DEPARTMENT)oREPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoDISTRICToCOMMISSIONER oCACHARoASSAM 4:THEoDISTRICToCOMMISSIONERoCACHARoASSAM Page No.# 3/4 5:ZILLA PARISHAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CACHAR For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.C. Paul, Advocate.

: Mr. A.R. Das, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Konwar, Additional Advocate General, Assam.

: Ms. P. Thapa, Advocate. – BEFORE – HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

17.12.2024 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)

By filing this writ petition in the design of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the petitioners have challenged the validity of the Notification dated 16.10.2024, issued by the District Commissioner, Cachar, Chairman of District Delimitation Commission, Cachar, whereby the Badripar Gaon Panchayat under Banaskandi Development Block at village Badripar has been given a new name and notified as the Headquarters of Gangapur-Badripar Gaon Panchayat under Rangpur Development Block at village Gangapur. It is noticed that this PIL petition is filed by 12 petitioners challenging the validity of the above referred Notification, while claiming that the said Notification is going to affect thousands of people of the residents of village Badripar. Prima-facie we are of the view that the delimitation process is purely an administrative exercise and comes within the domain of the administrative authorities. Even if the present petitioners are aggrieved by the delimitation process, it cannot be said that they are representing the whole villagers who may not have been affected by the delimitation process. In such circumstances, we are of the view that this PIL petition challenging the delimitation process is not maintainable. At this stage, Mr. R.C. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has Page No.# 4/4 prayed that he may be allowed to withdraw this PIL petition. However, he seeks liberty for the petitioners to challenge the delimitation process by way of filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this PIL petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty, as prayed for.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Comparing Assistant