Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19079 (GAU)

SABITRI TEWARI v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

WP(C)/6764/2018 · 2025-08-05

Devashis Baruah

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010133892018 2025:GAU-AS:10346 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5709/2018 SILCHAR MUNICIPAL BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SILCHAR, CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788001 VERSUS SABITRI TEWARI AND 4 ORS. W/O- LT ANGSHUMAN TIWARI, R/O- ITKHOLA, WARD NO 4, SILCHAR, CACHAR 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION GOVT. OF ASSAM GHY ASSAM 3:THE COMM. OF EXCISE ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GHY-6 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001 5:SMTI ROSY CHAKRABORTY DAUGHTER OF LATE RAM MOHON CHAKRBOARTY R/O SWAMIJI ROAD ITKHOLA P.O.- SILCHAR-788002 Page No.# 2/4 DIST.- CACHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S DUTTA, MS. N MODI,MR. C SHARMA,MR. S DUTTA,MR. R A HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, EXCISE DEPTT.,MR. A BHATTACHARJEE (R1),MR. A ROY (R1),MR. M NATH (R1) Linked Case : WP(C)/6764/2018 SABITRI TEWARI W/O- LT ANGSHUMAN TEWARI R/O- ITKHOLA WARD NO 4 SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. EXCISE DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 2:COMM. OF EXCISE ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GHY-6 3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001 4:THE SILCHAR MUNICIPAL BOARD SILCHAR REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN Page No.# 3/4 SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001 5:THE CHAIRMAN SILCHAR MUNICIPAL BOARD SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001 ------------ Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. S Dutta, Senior Advocate Mr. S Dutta Mr. M Nath Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. M Chetia, Govt. Advocate, Assam B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 06.08.2025 It has been submitted at the Bar by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions that both the writ petitions have become infructuous, inasmuch as, the petitioner in WP(C)No.6764/2018 had already been issued the trade license. 2. Taking into account the above, both the writ petitions stand closed as infructuous. 3. Interim order(s), passed, if any, shall stand vacated. Page No.# 4/4 JUDGE Comparing Assistant