Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13689 (GAU)

KANTA RAM MILI v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND 9 ORS

WP(C)/3713/2021 · 2025-09-07

Kaushik Goswami

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010120062021 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3713/2021 KANTA RAM MILI S/O LATE DIMBESWAR MILI, R/O VILL. DIPAGAON, P.O. KHURACHUK, GOGAMUKH, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN 787034 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 9 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF POWER, NEW DELHI, PIN 110001 2:NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. (NEEPCO LTD.) TO REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR NEEPCO LTD. BROOK LAND COMPOUND LAITUMKHRA SHILLONG 703003 3:THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR NEEPCO LTD. BROOK LAND COMPOUND LAITUMKHRA SHILLONG 703003 4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR) NEEPCO LTD. BROOK LAND COMPOUND LAITUMKHRA SHILLONG 703003 5:THE DY. GENERAL MANAGER (HR) ESTT. NEEPCO LTD. BROOK LAND COMPOUND LAITUMKHRA SHILLONG 703003 Page No.# 2/3 6:HEAD OF THE PROJECT KAHEP (KAMENG HYDRO ELECTRICAL PROJECT) KIMI NEEPCO LTD. WEST KAMENG DIST. ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN 790114 7:HEAD OF THE PROJECT AGBP (ASSAM GAS BASED POWER PLANT) BAKULANI NEEPCO LTD. DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN 7826191 8:HEAD OF THE PROJECT RHEP YAZALI NEEPCO LTD. LOWER SUBANSIRI DIST. ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN 791119 9:MIMAR ETE DY . MANAGER (SECURITY) RHEP YAJALI NEEPCO LTD. LOWER SUBANSIRI DIST. ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN 791119 10:YENGKHOM RAVI SINGH ASSTT. MANAGER SECURITY AGBP BOKULONI NEEPCO LTD. DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN 782619 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C GOSWAMI, Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR D SENAPATI,MS. S. TODI,MR H K SARMA,MR. K K PARASAR Page No.# 3/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 08.09.2025 Heard Mr. C. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent on call. Mr. C. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that challenge in the instant writ petition is subject transfer; however, during the pendency of the writ proceeding, the petitioner has expired. In view of the aforesaid endorsement, nothing survives for adjudication in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed on being infructuous. JUDGE Comparing Assistant