Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010125412025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3280/2025 AMINUL HOQUE S/O. IDRIS ALI, VILL. N.H.36 ROAD, NEAR JAME MASZID DIKHARUMUKH, DIST. NAGAON. PIN CODE- 782440, STATE- ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, HOME DEPTT., NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP. BY CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NIRVACHAN BHABAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI- 110001. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPT. DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER (BORDER) ULUBARI GHY-05. 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HOJAI ASSAM. Page No.# 2/3 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) HOJAI ASSAM. 7:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISON JAWAHAR NAGAR KHANAPARA GHY ASSAM PIN- 781002 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. G BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. B DEKA (C.G.C),SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ECI,DY.S.G.I. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 30.07.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Ms. G. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. R. Adhikari, learned CGC, Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters, Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. P. Barua, learned Standing Counsel for ECI and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though by virtue of an affidavit filed on behalf of the Border Security Force (BSF), it is projected that Idrish Ali, the father of the petitioner was pushed back to Bangladesh side from the AOR (Area of Responsibility) of ad hoc GW 2503 Battalion, BSF under Sector Headquarter, BSF, Dhubri, but according to her, the manner in which the action was taken is not in accordance with law. Therefore, she prays that in the event Page No.# 3/3 the Court is inclined to close this matter, the petitioner may be given liberty to agitate the said issue. 3. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and as the current status of the father of the petitioner has been disclosed which is the first prayer made in this writ petition, and in so far as the second prayer is concerned, the same would require the procedure as established by law to visit the father of the petitioner, as such, the Court is inclined to close this writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to agitate regarding the action taken against the father of the petitioner, in a manner as the petitioner may be so advised. 4. With liberty as mentioned above, this writ petition stands closed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant