THE NIKHIL BISHNUPRIYA MANIPURI MAHASABHA AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
WP(C)/2853/2023 · 2026-03-11
Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Writ Petition (Civil)body2023
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2023 DAILYLAW 1631 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2023 DAILYLAW 1631 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010097192023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2853/2023 THE NIKHIL BISHNUPRIYA MANIPURI MAHASABHA AND ANR.
BHAKATPUR, SILCHAR-5, CACHAR, ASSAM (REP. BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE ABOVE MAHASABHA, SHRI PRATAP SINHA 2: SHRI PRATAP SINHA S/O- SRI ARJUN SINHA OF ONGC ROAD P.O. AND P.S. PATHARKANDI DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR DISTRICT SILCHAR ASSAM 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SADAR REVENUE CIRCLE SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM 4:(SO CALLED) NIKHIL BISHNUPRIYA MANIPURI MAHASABHA SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM (REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SHRI BANABIR SINHA S/O- LATE KALASENA SINHA C/O- SHRI CHANDRA KANTA SINHA
Page No.# 2/2 ASHRAM ROAD P.S. SILCHAR PIN- 788007 DIST.- CACHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B SINHA, MR. S UPADHAY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. M K CHOUDHURY (r-4),MR. M SARMA (r- 4),MR P BHARDWAJ (r-4)
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 12.03.2026 None appears for the petitioners on call whereas Shri S.S. Roy, learned State Counsel, Assam and Shri R. Gohain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 are present. Even on the previous occasions, there has been default on the part of the petitioners. When this matter was taken up for consideration on 10.03.2026, noticing that there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners, the matter was adjourned till today in the interest of justice, however, with an observation that in case of further default, appropriate orders would be passed. It clearly appears that the petitioners are not serious in pursuing this case. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant