Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010177402025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4599/2025 ARPANA SARMAH D/O- MITRA DEV SARMAH, SONAKI ENCLAVE, BONGAON PATH, P.S. BASISTHA, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM VERSUS THE BODOLAND UNIVERSITY AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, DEBAGAON, KOKRAJHAR-783370. 2:THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF BODOLAND UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY THE VICE-CHANCELLOR BODOLAND UNIVERSITY KOKRAJHAR-783370. 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE CHANCELLOR OF BODOLAND UNIVERSITY RAJ BHAWAN GUWAHATI-781001. 4:THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI-110002. 5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT I-BLOCK JANATA BHAWAN GUWAHATI-781006. Page No.# 2/3 6:SMT. VARNALI DEKA COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT JANATA BHAWAN GUWAHATI-781006 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD S HOQUE, MR. M DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. K P PATHAK (R-6),SC, U G C,SC, BODOLAND UNIVERSITY BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 29.08.2025 Heard Shri S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri K.K. Dey, learned Standing Counsel, Bodoland University, Shri N. Goswami, learned State Counsel, Ms K. Borpujari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri A. Chamuah, learned Standing Counsel, UGC and Shri K.P. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. The grievance is against the respondent no. 6 who was serving as the District Commissioner of the District of Kokrajhar. The petitioner has obtained certain information that the said respondent no. 6 had obtained the Ph.D. Degree from the Bodoland University which requires 70% attendance. It is also submitted that the stand of the Bodoland University is also inconsistent inasmuch as at one hand it was informed that the respondent no. 6 had 70% attendance and on the other hand it was informed that the Attendance Register was lost. The petitioner also claims to have approached the UGC which had not taken the matter in the right spirit. Page No.# 3/3 This Court is however of the opinion that though there may be some substance in the contention, the locus of the petitioner would be of paramount importance as the powers exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is prerogative in nature. In the opinion of this Court, no legal prejudice or any rights of the petitioner is violated by the action impugned. At this stage, Shri Hoque, the learned counsel prays for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty. This Court while allowing the withdrawal of the writ petition cannot give liberty to a person who does not have the locus. It is needless to state that before coming to the Court the person approaching the Court should be a competent person who fulfils the locus. JUDGE Comparing Assistant