WP(C) 64/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel led by Mr. T.C. Khetri, learned Sr . counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. Also heard Mr. B. Talukdar, learned counsel for the r espondents No. 2 and 3 and Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. G.A. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-E order dated 02.01.08 by which the particular allotment earlier given to her was cancelled. The petitioner was the applicant alongwith others for allotment of the 1st Floor of the particular building meant for commercial purpose. The respondent No. 4 was also an applican t for such allotment. The petitioner was allotted with the 1st Floor by Annexure -C order dated 24.12.07 at Rs. 4 lakhs which was in addition to earlier deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs. By Annexure E impugned order dated 01.02.08 allotment was cancel led as per the decision of the Board, namely Nalbari Municipal Board. Simultaneo usly, the allotment of the 1st Floor was given in favour of the respondent No. 4 , i.e. M/s. Ali and Lahkar Associates represented by Shri Rajib Lahkar. In the counter affidavit, the respondent Board has justified their acti on on the ground that the earlier allotment made in favour of the petitioner was in violation of the provisions of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956. According to t he respondent Board, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was by the C hairman of the Board all by himself without placing the matter before the Board for necessary approval. In such a situation the Board once again processed the m atter eventually deciding to settle the particular Floor in favour of the respon dent No. 4 in cancellation of the earlier allotment made by the Chairman in favo ur of the petitioner. During the course of hearing on 19.01.08 it was revealed on perusal of t he records that the respondent No. 4 submitted its application in the name of A li and Lahkar Associates . The records further revealed that the Chairman of the Board wanted to verify as to whether there was any valid partnership deed and p ower of attorney in favour of Rajib Lahkar who represents the respondent No. 4. Having noticed the same, the respondent Board was directed to furnish necessary clarification. The respondent Board has filed an additional affidavit on 28.11.0 8 from which it appears that although the allotment was made in favour of the re spondent No.4 vide resolution No. 5 adopted in the meeting held on 29.12.07, the respondent No. 4 was also directed to furnish the power of attorney. Such power of attorney was furnished by Rajib Lahkar on 31.12.07 which is admittedly after submission of the application and the resolution adopted on 29.12.07 in favour of the respondent No. 4. It is in this context, Mr. Mahanata, learned counsel of the petitioner submits that on the date of filing of the application by the res pondent No. 4, in absence of any valid power of attorney the application was def ective and could not have been entertained by the respondent Board. He further s ubmits that there being nothing to show that the partnership firm in the name of Ali and Lahkar Associates , does exist in which name the application was file d by Rajib Lahkar, was not entertainable. In the additional affidavit, the respondent Board has taken the plea tha t there being alternative remedy under Section 322 of the Municipal Act, the wri t petition is not maintainable. As per Section 322 of the Act, any person aggrie ved by any order may approach the State Govt. or the officer authorized by the S tate Govt. whose decision shall be final in the matter. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed for disposal of the writ pet ition providing that the petitioner may approach the said authority under Sectio n 322 of the Act making a grievance against the impugned Annexure-E order dated 02.01.08. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of providing that th e petitioner may approach the competent authority under Section 322 of the Act m aking a grievance against Annexure-E order dated 02.01.08 within 31.01.09. In th e event of making such an approach to the competent authority by way of an appea l, the said authority may decide the issue in accordance with law after hearing all the parties. It is expected that the authority will decide the matter as exp editiously as possible preferably within one month after affording all reasonabl e opportunities to all the parties. Till then, the status quo in respect of the 1st Floor shall be maintained.