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
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 15464 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 15464 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
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