Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010232502017 2025:GAU-AS:124 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/651/2017 PUBERUN CONSORTIUM OF COMPANIES A CONSORTIUM OF M/S PRAGATI EDUTECH PVT.LTD. TRISHA CONSTRUCTION AND M/S AJITAAKSH VENTURES PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS LEAD PARTNER M/S AJITAAKSH VENTURES PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT BUDHIN BHAWAN, R.G. BARUAH ROAD, JONALI, GUWAHATI -24, AND IS REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON, SRI SUJOY BARUAH, SON OF RAMENDRA KUMAR BARUAH, R/O PRAG ENCLAVE, BASISTHAPUR BY LANE NO. 4, SURVEY BELTOLA, DIRECTOR, PRAGATI EDUTECH PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSAM BUILDING and ORS. CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD and 3 ORS. GOPINATH NAGAR, GUWAHATI - 781016, DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN 2:THE CHAIRMAN THE ASAM BUILDING and OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD GOPINATH NAGAR GUWAHATI - 781016 DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM. 3:LABOUR COMMISSIONER ASSAM -CUM- MEMBER SECRETARY ASAM BUILDING and OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD GOPINATH NAGAR GUWAHATI - 781016 Page No.# 2/3 DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM. 4:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM LAOBUR AND EMPLOYEMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM For the petitioner (s) : None appears For the respondent (s) : Mr. K. Gogoi, Govt. Advocate BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 06.01.2025 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents. 3. It is noticed that the instant writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 31.05.2016 whereby the Labour Commissioner, Assam-cum-Member Secretary, Assam Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board had temporarily suspended the skill development training to the registered construction workers and their eligible dependent children till further orders. It is noticed that pursuant to filing of the writ Page No.# 3/3 petition, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.3, i.e. the Labour Commissioner, Assam wherein at paragraph No.11, it has been categorically mentioned that the said order was passed taking into account the operation of the Modal Code of Conduct at that relevant point of time. 4. In that view of the matter, it seems that the petitioner now has become disinterested with the instant writ proceedings for which the writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant