Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010102462025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2600/2025 SRI RONBIR KAKATI S/O - LATE SIBA CHANDRA KAKATI, R/O - HOUSE NO. 54, SAGARIKA BHAWAN, R.G.B ROAD, GUWAHATI-781024. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL (BTC) AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT BODOLAND SECRETARIAT COMPLEX BODOFA NWGWR KOKRAJHAR PIN-783370. 3:THE SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL (BTC) AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT BODOLAND SECRETARIAT COMPLEX BODOFA NWGWR KOKRAJHAR PIN-783370 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P MAHANTA, M DAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, BTC Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 16.05 .2025 Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.05.2025, whereby the petitioner has been released from his post as Executive Engineer (Agriculture) Kokrajhar Division, Kokrajhar under Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) with immediate effect. It is submitted that this release order is issued on the basis of complaints stated to have been received against the petitioner which have not been confronted to the petitioner. Being aggrieved he has approached the authority by filing a representation dated 09.05.2025 which has not been disposed of by the authority. He further referring to the standing orders extracted from the Memorandum of Settlement submits that all executive orders are required to be passed by the Principal Secretary of Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC). He submits that this particular order is issued by the Secretary of Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) which is not the appropriate authority for issuance of the impugned notification. He further submits that the petitioner will superannuate from service on 31.08.2025 and therefore, at this stage the impugned notification dated 08.05.2025 issued on the basis of any complaints will amount to a punitive transfer as sought to be carried out. Page No.# 3/3 Mr. P. Nayak, learned Addl. Advocate General representing the BTC on the other hand submits that he is an employee of the Government of Assam and if the department proceeds to take action against the petitioner on the basis of any complaints, it should be done strictly in terms of the established rules and procedure and in so far as the contention of the petitioner that the order is issued by an unauthorized person will dispute the same. He submits that as per Clause 5.10 the Secretary is also an authorized Officer to exercise powers and therefore the contention that the impugned order has been issued by the respondent without any authority is not accepted and disputed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties it seen that the petitioner has filed a representation on 09.05.2025 before the Principal Secretary. It is submitted that this representation is still pending and no orders have been passed thereof. Considering the submissions made and also considering that the representation is still pending this Court disposes of the writ petition without issuing notice at this stage and without expressing any merit. The BTC Authority will dispose of the representation within one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and pass speaking order on the said representation and serve copies thereof on the writ petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has not handed over his charge till date, therefore, the status quo will be maintained till the disposal of the representation. JUDGE Comparing Assistant