WP(C) 1405/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. On the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner the name of the respondent No. 4 is struck off from the list the respondents. A process for settlement of Beltola Bi-weekly Market for the year 2007-0 8 was initiated by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation by issuing the Notice Invi ting Tender, which was published in the local newspaper on 11.05.2007, containin g therein the terms and conditions under which such NIT was issued. Pursuant to such NIT the petitioner and others submitted their respective bids. The market i n question was eventually settled with the petitioner vide order dated 30.08.200 7 at Rs.23,33,340/- for a period of 9(nine) months w.e.f. 01.09.2007 to 31.05.20 08. An agreement was also subsequently executed between the parties on 07.09.200 7. During continuance of the lease certain complaints were received by the autho rity against the present petitioner for realization of excess amount from the tr aders, for which an inquiry was conducted and on the basis of the report of such inquiry an order dated 01.04.2008 has been passed by the Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation terminating the lease with immediate effect and forfeitin g the advance amount of Rs.11,07,407/- and 5% earnest money deposited by the pet itioner. The petitioner has challenged the said order dated 01.04.2008 on the gro und that before passing such order holding that the petitioner has violated the clause 24 of the NIT and clause 8 of the Deed of Agreement, no opportunity of he aring was given to him and in the alleged inquiry conducted he was not given any notice and thereby denying an opportunity to present his case in such inquiry. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Corporation it ha s been stated that in view of certain allegations received against the petitione r of charging exorbitant amount from the traders, an inquiry was conducted by th e Addl. Commissioner of the Corporation, who upon such inquiry submitted a repor t on 24.03.2008 to the Commissioner with the finding that the petitioner did col lected exorbitant amount from the traders, on the basis of which the Commissione r vide order dated 01.04.2008 cancelled the lease in view of clause 24 of the NI T and clause 8 of the Deed of Agreement. The respondent Corporation has also enc losed the copy of the inquiry report dated 24.03.2008, which is the basis for pa ssing the order dated 01.04.2008. From the records produced by Mr. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing f or the Corporation it reveals that though the Addl. Commissioner of the Corporat ion had made an inquiry relating to the allegation of collection of exorbitant a mount from the traders, no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner intima ting him about the conduct of such inquiry. The record was also does not reveal the communication of the allegation against the petitioner, for which such inqui ry was conducted. Such inquiry, therefore, was conducted by the Addl. Commission er of the Corporation behind the back of the petitioner as no opportunity to def end himself was given to the petitioner. Since the order dated 01.04.2008 has be en passed on the basis of the said inquiry report dated 24.03.2008, which has be en conducted in violation of principle of natural justice, the order dated 01.04 .2008 passed by the Commissioner cannot stand the scrutiny of law. In view of the above, the order dated 01.04.2008 passed by the Commissio ner stands set aside. Mr. Konwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage has submitted t hat since the Corporation has taken a decision to manage the market of their own , he is not praying for allowing him to manage the said market for the remaining period of the lease, but has prayed for refund of the earnest money as well as the advance payment deposited by him proportionate to the period for which he wa s not allowed to manage the market. Mr. Saikia, the learned counsel for the resp ondents has submitted that since the order dated 01.04.2008 has been set aside, the authority will definitely refund the earnest money to the petitioner and als o shall verify the number of days for which the petitioner could not manage the market in terms of order of settlement made in his favour and shall refund the p roportionate amount from the amount advanced by the petitioner which may be foun d due and payable to the petitioner. In view of the above, the respondent Corporation is directed to refund t he earnest money to the petitioner and also to verify the number of days for whi ch the petitioner could not manage the market in question in view of the impugne d order dated 01.04.2008 and upon such verification refund the proportionate amo unt to the petitioner from the amount advanced by him which have been forfeited by the impugned order dated 01.04.2008. The said exercise is directed to be comp leted within a period of 3(three) month from today. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No cost.