Municipal undertaking to provide alternative accommodation and re-allotment binds it during market reconstruction.

The twenty petitioners were allotted shop rooms/spaces in the Chilarai Market under the Mangaldai Municipal Board and had been carrying on their respective trades there for approximately 25–30 years. They had also been issued trade licences under Sections 228, 229 and 230 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956.

The Mangaldai Municipal Board proposed to demolish the existing market and construct a new Chilarai Market Complex. The petitioners apprehended eviction without any assurance of re-allotment or provision of alternative spaces during construction.

The petitioners submitted representations to the District Commissioner, Darrang and the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board on 22 and 23 June 2026, respectively. Following an eviction notice dated 20 June 2026, they approached the High Court.

On 26 June 2026, the Court directed that no coercive action be taken to vacate the shops until the returnable date.

The Municipal Board subsequently filed an interlocutory application seeking vacation or modification of the interim order, relying on Resolution No. 1 dated 12 May 2026 and an undertaking that existing lawful shopkeepers would be provided alternative spaces during construction and re-allotted shops in the new complex.

1. Whether the petitioners’ grievance regarding their proposed eviction from the existing Chilarai Market, without assurance of alternative accommodation and re-allotment in the new complex, had been adequately addressed by the Municipal Board.

2. Whether the proposed eviction and redevelopment were vitiated by denial of natural justice or absence of an opportunity of hearing.

3. Whether the interim protection against coercive eviction should continue.

The Court considered Sections 228, 229 and 230 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, under which the petitioners had been issued trade licences.

It applied the principle of natural justice, particularly the requirement that affected persons receive appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard before adverse administrative action.

The Court further treated the Municipal Board’s Resolution No. 1 dated 12 May 2026 and the statement made on oath by its Chairman regarding alternative accommodation and re-allotment as an undertaking given before the Court.

The Court found that Resolution No. 1 expressly provided that businessmen occupying shops allotted by the Municipal Board would be re-allotted spaces in the newly constructed Chilarai Market Complex.

The Municipal Board also stated on oath that alternative locations would be arranged for the affected shopkeepers during the construction period.

These assurances directly addressed the petitioners’ principal grievance that demolition would leave them without a place to carry on their businesses.

The Court further held that the allegation of denial of natural justice was not sustainable because meetings had been held with the shopkeepers, including the participation of three petitioners, before issuance of the eviction notice.

In view of these circumstances, the Court concluded that the petitioners’ grievances had been duly considered and no further adjudication of the writ petition was necessary.

The interim order dated 26 June 2026 restraining coercive eviction was vacated.

The Court clarified that the Municipal Board’s commitments contained in Resolution No. 1 and paragraph 13 of its interlocutory application would be construed as an undertaking given before the Court.