Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25480 (GAU)

MADHAB CHANDRA PAUL v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.

WP(C)/5911/2025 · 2025-10-28

Manish Choudhury

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010225622025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5911/2025 MADHAB CHANDRA PAUL S/O SRI PURNA PAUL R/O CHANDRAPUR ROAD, NEAR PANIKHAITI RAILWAY GATE, P.O. PANIKHAITI, P.S. PRAGJYOTISHPUR, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM, PIN- 781026 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY HEADQUARTERS MALIGAON DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM-781011. 3:THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY LUMDING DIVISION DIST. HOJAI ASSAM. 4:THE ESTATE OFFICER NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY LUMDING DIVISION Page No.# 2/3 DIST. HOJAI ASSAM. 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METROPOLITAN GUWAHATI-781001 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER CHANDRAPUR REVENUE CIRCLE PANIKHAITI RAILWAY STATION ROAD BARCHAPARI DIST. KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM 7:THE GENERAL MANAGER APDCL KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM GUWAHATI-01 Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS N. SINGHA, MR. A A BARMAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE,SC, APDCL,DY.S.G.I. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 29-10-2025 Heard Mr. A.A. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department for the respondent no. 1; Mr. H. Gupta, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4; Mr. J. Handique, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 5 & 6; and Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL for the respondent no. 7. Page No.# 3/3 Mr. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that certain omissions took place in filing the writ petition and therefore, he may be allowed to withdraw the writ petition, with the liberty to file afresh. In view of the above submission made by Mr. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed on withdrawal, with the liberty, as prayed for. JUDGE Comparing Assistant