Ratul Chandra Roy vs. The State Of Assam And 8 Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Ratul Chandra Roy, filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities in not handing over an entire project as per an agreement dated 29.05.2023. The petitioner contended that prior to filing the writ petition, resolutions were passed reducing the area of the property to be handed over. During the pendency of the writ petition, the General Manager of Assam Tourism Development Corporation Limited decided to terminate the agreement with the petitioner. This decision involved refunding the security deposit of Rs. 4,93,200/- and the advance lease rent of Rs. 4,93,200/-, along with the GST. The termination order was dated 16.09.2026.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's grievances in the present writ proceedings, which were primarily based on the non-handover of the project and reduction of its area, could not be proceeded with. This was due to the subsequent decision by the General Manager of the Assam Tourism Development Corporation Limited to terminate the agreement with the petitioner, vide order dated 16.09.2026. The Court reasoned that the termination order fundamentally altered the situation, rendering the original challenge to inaction moot. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition challenging inaction may become infructuous if a subsequent action by the respondent, such as termination of an agreement, supersedes the original grievance. The Court closed the writ petition with liberty granted to the petitioner to assail the termination order dated 16.09.2026, subject to legal permissibility. The closing of the writ petition was not to prejudice the petitioner in challenging the termination order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's grievances regarding the non-handover of the project can be proceeded with, given the subsequent termination of the agreement by the Assam Tourism Development Corporation Limited? The petitioner argued that the authorities failed to hand over the entire project as per the agreement and subsequently reduced the project area through resolutions. The petitioner approached the court due to this inaction. The revenue (State of Assam and its departments/corporations) did not explicitly argue on the merits of the initial grievance, as the primary development during the writ petition's pendency was the termination of the agreement.