Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2666 (GAU)

Smt. Maya Lota Chakma and 8 Ors. v. The Chakma Autonomous District Council and 5 Ors.

WP(C)/118/2025 · 2026-01-29

Nelson Sailo

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030006672025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/118/2025 Smt. Maya Lota Chakma and 8 Ors. President, Village Council, Kamalanagar-IV, Chakma Autonomous District Council. 2: Sh. Mrinal Kanti Chakma 3: Sh. Talukdar Chakma 4: Sh. Unilia Chakma 5: Sh. Prema Rattan Chakma 6: Sh. Dhanya Ram Chakma 7: Sh. Zatan Chakma 8: Sh. Kamini Kumar Chakma 9: Sh. Kiron Chakm VERSUS The Chakma Autonomous District Council and 5 Ors. R/b its Executive Secretary/Chief Executive Member, Kamalanagar, Lawngtlai District, Mizoram. 2:The Deputy Commissioner Lawngtlai District 3:The Executive Member i/c LAD Page No.# 2/3 etc. Chakma Autonomous District Council 4:The Local Administration Officer Chakma Autonomous District Council 5:The Assistant Local Administration Officer Chakma Autonomous District Council 6:Sh. Sanjoy Chakm Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr B Lalramenga Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R2 B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER 30.01.2026 (Nelson Sailo, J) Ms. Laltlanhlui, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this writ petition was filed challenging the Notification dated 15.09.2025 (Annexure – 8), by which the Kamalanagar-IV, Village Council was placed under suspension for a period of three (3) months by the Local Administration Officer, Chakma Autonomous District Council, Kamalanagar. When the matter was taken up for motion on 12.12.2025, this Court passed an interim order staying the impugned Notification. Since the suspension Page No.# 3/3 was only for a period of three months, the same had expired during the pendency of the writ petition on 15.12.2025. She submits that now the petitioners have been allowed to function as the Village Council of Kamalanagar- IV and she has instructions to withdraw the writ petition. Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Government Advocate appears for the respondent No. 2 and submits that she has no objection to the prayer made by the petitioners. In view of above, the Writ Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. Interim order passed earlier stands merged with this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant