Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010123782022 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4214/2022 ABDUL KADER S/O- LATE MOKRAM ALI, R/O- VILLAGE- SALMARA PART-IV, P.O.- BONDIHANA, P.S.- FAKIRGANJ, DISTRICT- DHUBRI, ASSAM. PIN- 783349. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07. 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DHUBRI DISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301. 4:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE FAKIRGANJ POLICE STATION DISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783330. 5:THE I/C BONDIHANA POLICE OUTPOST P.S.- FAKIRGANJ DISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 PIN- 783349. 6:SMT. SUKURI KHATUN D/O- ASHAN ALI R/O- VILLAGE- DIMATOLA PART-II P.O.- JORUARCHAR P.S.- FAKIRGANJ DISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM. PIN- 783339 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A ISLAM, MR J I MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 24.02.2026 Heard Shri MA Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri N. Das, learned State Counsel. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the harassment meted out to him by the Police Personnel of the Bondihana Outpost under the Fakirganj Police Station in the district of Dhubri. It has been projected that without lodging any Ejahar, the petitioner was taken into custody on 19.04.2022 and kept in detention for 3 hours whereafter he was released. Even thereafter the harassment continued for some time for which this writ petition was instituted in the year 2022. 3. Shri Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that after filing of the writ petition, the harassment has stopped. 4. Shri N. Das, learned State Counsel has submitted that the action taken by the Police was only for maintenance of law and order. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the Page No.# 3/3 opinion that though at the relevant point of time in the year 2022, there might have been some cause of action, as fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same has not continued thereafter. In the opinion of this Court adjudication of this matter would be a mere academic. 6. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is not required to be continued any further and is accordingly closed. 7. It is however made clear that in the event of arising of any fresh cause of action, there would be no bar for the petitioner to approach this Court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant