Writ petitions involving disputed facts are not entertained where an efficacious statutory appeal lies under the GMDA Act.

The petitioner, an apartment owner/resident in an RCC ground-plus-two-storey building constructed on land covered by Dag Nos. 327 and Periodic Patta No. 831 at Ulubari, Guwahati, challenged Order No. eCF 517123/3 dated 27 January 2025 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA), concerning demolition or sealing of the alleged unauthorised construction.

Notice was served on the private respondents, including the builder/developer and landowner, but they did not appear.

A co-ordinate Bench had previously declined to entertain a similar writ petition relating to the same building, directing the aggrieved party to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under the GMDA Act, 1985.

During the present proceedings, the petitioner expressed his intention to avail that appellate remedy.

1. Whether the writ petition challenging the GMDA’s order dated 27 January 2025 should be entertained when the petitioner has an adequate statutory remedy of appeal under the GMDA Act, 1985?

2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file a delayed statutory appeal, and whether protection against demolition or sealing should continue to enable him to pursue that remedy?

The Court applied Sections 71–73 of the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1985. Section 71 provides for appointment of an appellate authority to hear appeals arising under the Act; Section 72 authorises the appellate authority to hear appeals against orders of the GMDA and requires appeals to be filed within one month, while permitting condonation of delay for sufficient reasons; and Section 73 prescribes the appellate procedure, including the power to hear affected parties, take evidence, enforce attendance of witnesses, compel production of documents, and exercise powers analogous to those of a Civil Court.

Under Government Notification No. GDD.49/94/Pt/44 dated 22 August 1996, the District & Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati was designated as the appellate authority under Section 71(2).

The Court further applied the principle that a writ petition under Article 226 may ordinarily be declined where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists, particularly when disputed questions of fact require adjudication.

The Court found that the petitioner’s challenge involved several disputed factual questions concerning the alleged unauthorised construction, making the writ jurisdiction unsuitable for determining the controversy.

The GMDA Act expressly provides an appellate mechanism with powers adequate to examine evidence, require production of documents, hear interested parties, and grant appropriate relief.

Since the limitation period for challenging the order dated 27 January 2025 had expired, the Court noted that the appellate authority possessed statutory power to condone the delay under Section 72(2).

Consistent with the treatment of the similarly situated petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2591/2025, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction but granted the petitioner a limited opportunity to approach the appellate authority.

Because the impugned order contemplated demolition or sealing and had previously been stayed by an interim order dated 16 May 2025, the Court continued interim protection temporarily to prevent the statutory appeal from being rendered infructuous.

The Court directed that if the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority within thirty days from 15 July 2026, the appeal would be entertained and decided on merits without insisting on limitation.

The interim order dated 16 May 2025 restraining action under the GMDA order dated 27 January 2025 was continued for one month from 15 July 2026, solely to enable the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy.

Any application for interim relief in the appeal was left to the discretion of the appellate authority.