Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010177872025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2636/2025 In WP(C)/4400/2025 SHREE PAWAN PUTRA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS P LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT LAIPULI, P.O., P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786125 AND HEAD OFFICE AT JYOTINAGAR, DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI NAVIN BIRMIWAL, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O SRI ATMARAM BIRMIWAL, R/O JYOTINAGAR, P.O.- JALAN NAGAR, P.S.- BARBARI, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, NEW DELHI 2:THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA (FCI) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR 16-20 BARAKHAMBA LANE NEW DELHI PIN-710001 3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (COST) FCI 16-20 BARAKHAMBA LANE NEW DELHI PIN-710001 4:THE REGIONAL MANAGER FCI Page No.# 2/4 GUWAHATI G.S. ROAD PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-781008 5:THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER FCI DIBRUGARH ASSAM 6:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER FOOD PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 7:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DIBRUGARH ASSAM 8:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIR CHARAIDEO ASSAM 9:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIR DIBRUGARH ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. BHASKAR DUTTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR. SAILENDRA DEKA,MR JITENDRA DAS,MS L RONGPIPI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, F C I Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 18-08-2025 Heard Shri S. Deka, learned counsel for the applicant/writ petitioner, who has filed this application for correction of typographical error. The corrections sought to be made have been narrated in paragraph 4, which reads as follows:- “A. That in the synopsis at paragraph No.4 (line No.1) and in paragraph No.5 (line No.2), the words "letter dated 10.04.2025 SHOULD BE CORRECTED AS "letter dated 07.04.2025". B. That in the synopsis at paragraph No.4 (line No.2) and in paragraph No.5 (line No.3), the words "respondent No.8" SHOUD BE CORRECTED AS "respondent No.7". C. That in the cause title at page No.6, the respondent No.7, which read as "THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, Charaideo SHOULD BE CORRECTED AS "THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, Dibrugarh". D. That the words "respondent No.8" as mentioned in paragraph No.1 at line No.4, in paragraph No.11 at line No.3, in paragraph No.12 at line No.2, in paragraph No.13 at line No.5, in paragraph No.17 in line No.4, in paragraph No.19 at line No.1 of the writ petition SHOULD BE CORRECTED AS "respondent No.7". E. That the word "respondent No.6" as mentioned in paragraph No.16 at page No.15 of the writ petition, SHOULD BE CORRECT as "respondent No.7". F. That the prayer No.1, which read as "A writ in the nature of certiorari shall not be issued, setting aside and quashing the impugned letter dated 10.04.2025, issued by the respondent No.8", SHOULD BE CORRECTED AS "A writ in the nature of certiorari shall not be issued, setting aside and quashing the impugned letter dated 07.04.2025, issued by the respondent No.7". G. That the prayer No.4, which read as "A writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued commanding and forbearing the respondent No.8 from giving effect to the impugned letter dated 10.04.2025" SHOULD BE CORRECTED as "A Page No.# 4/4 writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued commanding and forbearing the respondent No.7 from giving effect to the impugned letter dated 07.04.2025".” The learned counsel has submitted that the said error has crept in due to inadvertence. Ms. D. Pegu, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri B. K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, FCI, Shri J. Handique, learned State Counsel and Shri H. Gupta, learned CGC do not object to the aforesaid correction. After hearing, the corrections sought for as indicated in paragraph 4 are allowed to be made. IA stands allowed. The learned counsel for the applicant is accordingly required to file a corrected writ petition and served copies upon the same to the concerned learned counsel of the respondents. JUDGE Comparing Assistant