AMGURI NABA NIRMAN SAMITY v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
PIL/76/2024 · 2025-01-05
Kaushik Goswami
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 20792 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 20792 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010241162024
2025:GAU-AS:69-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : PIL/76/2024 AMGURI NABA NIRMAN SAMITY, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT AMGURI NAGAR, WARD NO. 4, P.O. AND P.S.- AMGURI, PIN- 785680, SIVASAGAR, ASSAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI DIGANTA SAIKIA, AGED ABOUT- 44 YEARS, S/O- SRI AMBESWAR SAIKIA, R/O- AMGURI NAGAR, WARD NO. 4, P.O.- AMGURI, P.S.- AMGURI, DIST.- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN-
785680. VERSUS 1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF AGRICULTURE , ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF AGRICULTURE ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06.
4:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF AGRICULTURE ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.
5:THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE ASSAM KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-2 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Bordoloi, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Choudhury, Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5. : Ms. S. Sarma, Govt. Advocate, Assam for respondent No.3.
Page No.# 2/2 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI 06.01.2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner in the form of Public Interest Litigation essentially raising a grievance that the respondents have not complied with the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2022 in PIL No.73/2020. This Court, while disposing of the PIL No.23/2020 vide order dated 25.11.2022, had issued 4(four) directions to the respondent authorities. We are of the view that if the said directions have not been complied with by the respondent authorities, the appropriate course for the petitioner is to file a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the directions of this Court by the respondents. For the very same cause, which has already been determined by this Court in the earlier PIL, second PIL is not maintainable. Hence, this PIL petition is dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant