Writ Petition Under Article 226 Inadmissible if Seeking Modification of Coordinate Bench Order.

The petitioner, Ashraful Alam, claimed to be a lease-holder of a 2-Katha plot (Dag No. 2140) under the "Muchi Koborsthan Committee" and had sub-let the premises to M/s Excel Engineers Innovations India Pvt. Ltd.

Following a judgment in W.P.(C) No. 1723/2023, where the court directed the Deputy Commissioner to evict unauthorized occupants from government land reserved for the "Muchi Kabarstan", the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) sealed the petitioner’s premises on August 9, 2024, for lacking a trade license.

Subsequently, the Circle Officer issued an eviction notice on September 12, 2024, under Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to dispose of his representation for de-sealing and a modification of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 1723/2023 on the grounds that he was not impleaded as a party.

1. Whether a representation for de-sealing premises survives if a separate judicial order has already directed the de-sealing.

2. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable to challenge or modify an order passed by a coordinate bench of the same High Court in a previous writ petition.

The court applied the principle of judicial finality and the jurisdictional limits of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, establishing that a writ petition cannot serve as a mechanism to challenge an order of a coordinate bench.

Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation regarding eviction from government land.

The court found that the petitioner’s first prayer (disposal of representation to de-seal) was infructuous because a separate writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 256/2026, had already resulted in an order dated February 16, 2026, directing the de-sealing of the premises.

Regarding the second prayer to modify the previous judgment in W.P.(C) No. 1723/2023, the court reasoned that an order passed by a coordinate bench under Article 226 cannot be challenged or modified through a subsequent writ petition filed under the same Article, regardless of whether the petitioner was a party to the original proceedings.

The court maintained that such a challenge is procedurally impermissible within the same hierarchy of jurisdiction.

The first prayer was dismissed as infructuous, and the second as legally non-maintainable. The interim order previously stayed was recalled.