Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010168042025 2025:GAU-AS:11663 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4379/2025 GHANASHYAM NATH S/O- LATE RATNESWAR NATH, R/O- VILL.- BARHARID, P.O. CHAKCHAKA, P.S. SORBHOG, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT (LR) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA P.O. AND DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301. 3:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER (REV.) BARPETA P.O. AND DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301. 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BARNAGAR REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. AND P.S. SORBHOG DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781317 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, MR N AHMED,M RAHMAN Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 29.08.2025 Heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner; J. Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. D. Borah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court by the instant writ petition, aggrieved by an Order dated 03.01.2025, passed by the respondent no. 3, and non-disposal of his Representation made before the respondent no. 3 thereafter on 10.01.2025. 3. The petitioner at the time of issuance of the impugned Order dated 03.01.2025, was serving as a Gaon Pradhan of Charge no. 2, Rupshi Mouza under Barnagar Revenue Circle, District – Barpeta. It is stated that in the said post of Gaon Pradhan, the petitioner was appointed pursuant to an Order dated 07.02.1995 passed by the respondent no. 2 and after being so appointed, he was serving in the said post to the best of his capacity and ability. 4. By the Order dated 03.01.2025, the respondent no. 3, based on a report submitted by the respondent no. 4, has suspended the petitioner with immediate effect with the approval of the respondent no. 2. It is mentioned in the Order dated 03.01.2025 that it has been reported that the petitioner as Gaon Pradhan of Charge no. 2 had taken bribe for MMUA verification process from beneficiaries, an allegation which he has refuted in his reply submitted on 10.01.2025 in response to a Show-Cause Notice dated 07.01.2025. 5. The petitioner has approached this Court stating that in his reply to the Show-Cause notice, submitted on 10.01.2025, he has also made a prayer for withdrawal of the suspension order. The petitioner has stated that he also made a Representation for withdrawal of his suspension also before the respondent no. 2. As more than seven months have elapsed in the Page No.# 3/3 meantime and the petitioner has not been informed about his prayer for reinstatement, the petitioner has approached this Court by the instant writ petition. 6. On the previous dates of listing of the case on 06.08.2025 and 13.08.2025, the learned State counsel was asked to obtain instructions as regards consideration or otherwise of the Representation submitted by the petitioner regarding withdrawal of the suspension order. Mr. Borah has submitted that though he has received some instructions, information as regards consideration and disposal of the Representation submitted by the petitioner has not been furnished. 7. Since the petitioner has a limited prayer for consideration of the representation submitted by him for withdrawal of the suspension order, this Court is of the considered view that instead of keeping the writ petition pending and without adverting to the merits of the prayer for withdrawal of the suspension, the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent no. 2 to take the representation, stated to have been submitted by the petitioner before him, on board and thereafter, to consider and dispose of the representation within a stipulated time period. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to take the representation submitted by the petitioner before him on board and thereafter, to consider and dispose of the same by a speaking order as expeditiously as possible, but within an outer limit of 3 [three] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order from the petitioner at his office, if the same has not yet been disposed of. If the Representation has already been disposed of then a copy of the order is to be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. 8. This order disposes of the writ petition. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant