Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010130952025 2025:GAU-AS:17074 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2170/2025 THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA DEEN DAYAL UPADHAYA MARG, NEW DELHI- 110124 VERSUS C CHANDRA KUMAR SON OF LATE THIRU C CHELLATHURAI, POSTED AT IN-CHARGE, DETT.PT.141, 478 RMPI (GREF), 95 RCC, C/O-56 APO, PIN 930 095, DISTJAISALMER, RAJASTHAN 2:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BHAWAN NO. 1 PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-110001. 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER ROADS SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN RING ROAD DELHI CANTT NEW DELHI-110010. 4:SECRETARY BORDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT BOARD B WING 4TH FLOOR SENA BHAWAN NEW DELHI- 110011. 5:SECRETARY DOPT NORTH BLOCK PMO NEW DELHI-110001 Page No.# 2/3 6:THE CHAIRMAN UPSC DHOLPUR HOUSE SHAJAHAN ROAD NEW DELHI- 110069 7:THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA (CANDAG) DEEN DAYAL UPATHYAY MARG NEW DELHI- 110124. 8:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PROJECT UDAYAK (GREF) CE (P) UDAYAK C/O- 99 APO PIN931715. 9:THE COMMANDAR 48 BRTF (GREF) C/O99 APO PIN- 930048 10:THE OFFICER COMMANDING 1444 BCC (GREF) C/O 99 AP Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R K TALUKDAR, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. I H SAIKIA, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 10.12.2025 Heard Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. R.K. D. Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and Mr. K. Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party. This is an application seeking striking off the name of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India from the array of parties in the connected review petition on the ground that the Comptroller and Page No.# 3/3 Auditor General of India is not a necessary party in the connected review petition. Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant being an independent constitutional authority having particular duties and responsibilities, there cannot be any grievance against the applicant, the applicant is not a necessary party in the connected review petition. Mr. RKD Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submits that since the applicant was a party in the connected writ petition, he may not be a necessary party but is a proper party. However, since the review petitioner raises no objection, he refrains from making submissions further on the issue. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that he has no objection if the present I.A. is allowed by striking off the name of the comptroller and Auditor General of India in the connected review petition. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that although the applicant may be a proper party, but may not be a necessary party and also considering that the petitioner raises no objection, I deem it appropriate to allow the I.A. Accordingly, the name of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India be struck off from the array of the party in the connected review petition. I.A. stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant