WP(C) 3276/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mrs. Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Ajitsaria, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. S.K. Medhi , the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged two communications , both issued by the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority, one dated 16.0 6.2009 (Annexure-I) and the other dated 08.07.2009 (Annexure-K), directing the p etitioner not to go ahead with the further construction pursuant to the NOC issu ed by the said authority, in view of the certain disputes raised by the present respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner has challenged the said communications ba sically on the ground that such NOC once issued, the authority cannot revoke suc h NOC on the ground that a dispute has been raised by the landholder relating to the construction. The further case of the petitioner is that such communication s have been issued without affording any opportunity of being heard. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 GMDA that such communications dated 16.06.2006 and 08.07.2009 have been is sued as temporary measures directing the petitioner not to proceed with the cons truction pursuant to the NOC issued till final decision is taken by the GMD auth ority on the representation filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4. According to th e learned counsel, since the petitioner has approached this court by means of th e present writ petition, no final decision could be taken by the GMD authority t he matter being sub-judice. According to respondent Nos.3 and 4 though an agreement was entered into between them and the writ petitioner and a power of attorney has been executed, on the basis of which the writ petitioner has obtained the NOC from the GMD aut hority, such agreement as well as the power of attorney have been cancelled and as such the petitioner cannot proceed with the construction further pursuant to the NOC issued by the GMD authority. It appears from the impugned communications dated 16.06.2009 and 08.07.2009 that the GMD authority, in view of the certain disputes raised by the respondent Nos .3 and 4, has directed the petitioner not to proceed with the construction until the matter is settled. Such orders are of temporary nature and till a final dec ision is taken by the GMD authority on the representation filed by the responden t Nos.3 and 4. Since no such final decision has been taken, because of the pendency of the present writ petition, I disposed of the present writ petition directing the GMD authority to decide the representation filed by the present respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and pass necessary order thereon, after hearing the parties concerned. S uch decision shall be taken within 2(two) weeks from the date of appearance of t he parties before the Chief Executive Officer of GMDA. The parties are directed to appear before the Chief Executive Officer on 23.11.2009. For the aforesaid pe riod of 3(three) weeks the petitioner is directed not to proceed with any furthe r construction. It is needless to say that in the event any of the parties is ag grieved by the said decision that may be taken by the GMD authority, it is open to him to approach the appropriate forum. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost.