Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20937 (GAU)

KHANJAN SAIKIA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS

WP(C)/7612/2018 · 2025-01-07

Michael Zothankhuma

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010244932018 2025:GAU-AS:220 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7612/2018 KHANJAN SAIKIA S/O- LATE MAHIDHAR SAIKIA, R/O- VILL- MAZGAON, KHARATI, P.O AND P.S- TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE REHABARI GUWAHATI- 781008 3:THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (T) UPPER ASSAM ZONE KACHARIGHAT GUWAHATI- 01 4:THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST NORTHERN ASSAM CIRCLE TEZPUR ASSAM PIN- 784001 5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER SONITPUR WEST DIVISION TEZPUR ASSAM PIN- 784001 6:THE RANGE OFFICER Page No.# 2/3 SADAR RANGE TEZPUR DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784001 7:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SONITPUR TEZPUR ASSAM PIN- 784001 8:THE CIRCLE OFFICER TEZPUR REVENUE CIRCLE DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784001 9:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM SOIL CONSERVATION DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 10:THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER SOIL CONSERVATION DIVISION TEZPUR ASSAM PIN- 78400 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B C DAS, MR. S K SINGH,MR B PUSHILAL Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FOREST BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 08.01.2025 No one appears for the petitioner on call. 2. It is noticed that no one had appeared for the petitioner on the last date Page No.# 3/3 also. 3. Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned counsel appears for the Forest Department. 4. The order dated 10.05.2023 passed by this Court shows that the petitioner had already expired. 5. A perusal of the averments on record shows that the mining period of 7 years has expired as on date. As such, it appears that the writ petition has become infructuous. 6. In view of the absence of the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant