Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15464 (GAU)

ANUPAM GOWALA AND 11 ORS. v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.

WP(C)/3912/2023 · 2025-03-16

Suman Shyam

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010147622023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3912/2023 ANUPAM GOWALA AND 11 ORS. S.I.(UB), SON OF SRI DHANIRAM GOWALA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- JYOTIPUR, P.O. AND P.S.- BOKAKHAT, DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785612. 2: MD. SABIR ALI S.I. (UB) SON OF LATE MOFIZ ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NIZARAPAR (SUNDARBARI) P.O.- GAUHATI UNIVERSITY P.S.- JALUKBARI DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781014. 3: ANNAPURNA CHETRI S.I.(UB) SON OF SRI JYOTI CHETRI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BALAGAON BAZAR P.S. AND DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 PIN -783370. 4: PRANJAL KR. NATH S.I.(UB) SON OF LATE GOPAL CH. NATH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BOROGURI P.S.- GARMUR DISTRICT- MAJULI ASSAM PIN- 785104. 5: CHITRANJIT KR. BORA S.I. (UB) SON OF LATE PROBHAT KR. BORA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RANGIAGAON P.O. CHALCHALI P.S.- SAMAGURI DISTRICT- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782141. 6: SATYAJIT BORTHAKUR S.I.(UB) SON OF MOHAN BORTHAKUR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MAKUM TENGAPANI ROAD P.O. AND P.S. MAKUM DISTRICT- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786170. 7: BHAITY AHMED S.I.(UB) Page No.# 3/6 SON OF MD. SALAM ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- JAYANTIPUR P.O.- KUWARITOL KALIABOR DISTRICT- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782137. 8: NAYANJYOTI DEKA S.I.(UB) SON OF SRI GINRINDRA NATH DEKA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DAUKUCHI P.O.- GOPALTHAN P.S. AND DISTRICT- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781334. 9: JYOTISH PHUKAN S.I.(UB) SON OF SRI ATUL PHUKAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MORAN LACHIT NAGAR P.O.- MORANHAT P.S.- MORAN DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 785670. 10: ALONGBAR BASUMATARY S.I.(UB) SON OF LATE SUKUMAR BASUMATARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KALJHAR Page No.# 4/6 P.O. AND P.S.- BORAMA DISTRICT- BAKSA ASSAM PIN- 781346. 11: RANA BHUYAN S.I.(UB) SON OF BIREN BHUYAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHAMATA RUPIABHATA P.O.- BELSOR P.S.- CHAMATA DISTRICT- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781306. 12: SRIGOHIN PEGU S.I.(UB) SON OF LATE NAGEN PEGU RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- URIAMGURI BALI GAON P.O. PATHALIPAM P.S.- BAGINADI DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 781306 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Page No.# 5/6 ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007. 3:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMIN) ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007. 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMIN) ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007. 5:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (TRAINING) ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007. 6:THE DEPARTMENTAL SELECTION BOARD FOR CONFIRMATION OF TEMPORARY/ OFFICIATING SUB INSPECTOR (UB) OF POLICE IN THE RANK OF SUB INSPECTOR (UB) OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA, MR W R MEDHI,MR. P DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM ORDER Page No.# 6/6 17.03.2025 Heard Mr. W. R. Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. C. K. S. Baruah, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 6. Mr. Medhi submits that during the pendency of this writ petition the grievance of the 12 writ petitioners have been substantially redressed and therefore, on the original prayer made in the writ petition, nothing further survives for adjudication by this Court. Mr. Medhi further submits that petitioner No.1 has passed away during the pendency of the writ petition and that some of the writ petitioners may have individual cause of action to file separate proceeding in the light of the departmental proceedings allegedly drawn against them. Therefore, by granting liberty to such petitioners to avail appropriate legal remedy in the matter as may be permissible under the law, Mr. Medhi submits that the writ petition may be closed. The prayer is not opposed by Mr. C. K. S. Baruah, learned counsel representing the respondents. In view of the above, this writ petition stands closed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. JUDGE Comparing Assistant