Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2699 (GAU)

MUNU NARZARY v. STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

WP(C)/5651/2025 · 2026-01-20

Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010214262025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5651/2025 MUNU NARZARY S/O - DEBEN NARZARY, R/O - VILL- BARIKODANGA, PO - GERUA, IN THE DISTRICT OF BAKSA, ASSAM - 781344. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370. 3:MARKET SETTLEMENT COMMITTEE BTC REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN KOKRAJHAR ASSAM-783370. 4:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BAKSA DISTRICT BTC ASSAM-781372. 5:BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DHAMDHAMA DEVELOPMENT BLOCK BAKSA ASSAM-781327. 6:SANSUMA BORO S/O- LAKHESWAR BORO R/O- VILL.- ADLA Page No.# 2/2 PO BANGANPARA P.S. BARBARI DIST. BAKSA ASSAM-781344 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K SARMA, MR. S BORUAH Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, S BARO (R-6),SC, P AND R.D.,SC, BTC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 21.01.2026 Heard Shri K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. U. Das, learned State Counsel, Ms. B. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC and Ms. S. Baro, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6. The grievance of the petitioner was with regard to the action of the BTC in cancelling the settlement of the market in question with him and rather giving it to the respondent no. 6. Ms. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel has however submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed and the market in question has now been settled with the petitioner. In this connection, she has placed before this Court a written instruction dated 08.01.2025. In view of the aforesaid instructions, this Court is of the view that there is no live cause of action to be adjudicated. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. The written instruction dated 08.01.2025 is made part of the records. It is needless to state that consequential action pursuant to the instructions be taken expeditiously. JUDGE Comparing Assistant