{"id":299749,"date":"2023-01-25T16:37:32","date_gmt":"2023-01-25T11:07:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=299749"},"modified":"2023-01-25T17:26:11","modified_gmt":"2023-01-25T11:56:11","slug":"gauhati-municipal-corporation-market-rents-pil","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/constitutional-law-news\/courts-news\/gauhati-municipal-corporation-market-rents-pil\/","title":{"rendered":"Gauhati High Court dismisses petitions seeking lowering of rent in GMC markets"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
The Gauhati High Court<\/a> dismissed a bunch of petitions pertaining to the allotment of rooms in the markets under the Gauhati Municipal Corporation (GMC).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The petitioner in all these petitions are different market committees under the GMC. In 1989, the entire market in Fancy Bazar was gutted and thereafter, a decision was taken to construct a multi-storied building and to accommodate the shopkeepers and in this direction, the petitioners claim that in spite of repeated orders of the High Court since 2000, the building could not be completed. Ultimately, after completion of construction in 2004, the rooms were allotted; however, the rent was charged at Rs 10 per sq. ft. which according to the petitioner was inconsistent with the rent fixed by the High Court as per an Expert Committee Report. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is the case of the petitioners that in 2020, the rent was again enhanced to Rs 38 per sq. ft. The said enhancement was the subject matter of challenge in a petition of 2020 in which a direction was issued on 07.01.2021 for submission and consideration of a representation by the GMC. Accordingly, on 29.01.2021, a representation was submitted which, according to the petitioners, was ignored and again notice was issued to pay the enhanced rate. The petitioners had again filed another petition in 2021 which was disposed of on 15.12.2021 directing consideration and disposal of the representation dated 29.01.2021. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The petitioners allege that thereafter an order dated 18.12.2021 has been passed by the Commissioner, GMC whereby the enhancement of the rates were justified and the prayer to reconsider was rejected. The petitioners contended that while maintaining the enhanced rates, the GMC could not perform their reciprocal duties in providing required facilities. The petitioners further allege that the GMC has been allowing unauthorized market \/ vendors on the roads approaching the market thereby making the GMC market inaccessible to customers. It is this action of the GMC which is the subject matter of challenge. It is also the case of the petitioners that on 09.03.2022, the shops of the petitioners were locked for which the petitioners had to institute a petition in 2022 and pursuant to an interim order of the High Court, the locks were opened by GMC authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The single-judge of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi considered the petitions and noted that the non-registration of the petitioner has been objected to as a non-registered body cannot assume the role of a legal entity. Not impleading the GMC in certain cases has also been objected to along with the objection of the petitions being barred by the doctrine of res judicata.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As regards the first objection that the petitioner is a non-registered body and therefore, does not have any legal existence, the High Court was of the view that the said objection is a substantial one. However, the Court being a Court of Equity and there being a second petitioner in the cases, who is a citizen, the Court would not like to non-suit the petitioners on this ground. A similar view of the High Court would be on the other objection namely, not making the GMC a party respondent. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court added that the said view is only in connection to the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases and are not to be treated as a precedent. As regards the issue of res judicata, this Court is of the view that though it is correct that the issue and parties are the same, there was no adjudication on merits in the earlier rounds of\u00a0 litigation and vide the order dated 17.12.2020 only a direction was given by the High Court to consider a fresh representation of the petitioners which was accordingly done vide the impugned order dated 24.12.2020. Therefore, in the strict sense, res judicata may not come in the way of adjudication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n