Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010163192025 2025:GAU-AS:16210 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4278/2025 FARUK AHMED CHOUDHURY SON OF ABDULLA CHOUDHURY, R/O VILLAGE NORTH NARAINPUR PART II, DIST HAILAKANDI, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, (CMD) BSNL, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, BHARAT SANCHAR BHAWAN, HARISH CHANDRA MATHUR LANE, JANAPATH, BSNL CO, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER GUWAHATI BA CORE NETWORK TX- NER 7TH FLOOR BSNL BHAWAN PANBAZAR GUWAHATI-01. 3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECT) CORE NETWORK TX- NER 6TH FLOOR BSNL BHAWAN PANBAZAR GUWAHATI- 01. 4:THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (TP) CORE NETWORK TRANSMISSION NORTH EAST REGION BSNL SILCHAR WIDEBAND BUILDING (1ST FLOOR) DRDA ROAD Page No.# 2/4 SILCHAR- 788001 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWRD SILCHAR AND UDHARBOND TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION. P.O- SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR PIN-788001 6:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD PESKAR LANE SONAI ROAD KANAKPUR PT (I) SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788006. 7:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR P.O AND DIST- CACHAR PIN-788001. 8:THE BRANCH MANAGER SBI PARK ROAD SILCHAR P.O- SILCHAR DISTRICT CACHAR PIN- 78800 For the petitioner (s) : Mr. Y. S. Mannan, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. A. K. Dutta, CGC Mr. B. Gogoi, AAG Mr. R. K. Talukdar, Advocate Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 26.11.2025 Heard Mr. Y. S. Mannan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. A. K. Dutta, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.1; Mr. R. K. Talukdar, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.4; and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 and 7. 2. Mr. Y. S. Mannan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be well advised to challenge the illegal termination of the contract by the Respondent Authorities in addition to the challenge made for which the instant writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the instant writ petition with liberty to refile by challenging the termination as well as maintain the challenges made in the instant writ petition. 3. Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition stands closed. 4. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to refile by Page No.# 4/4 challenging the termination in addition to the challenges which have been made in the instant writ petition. JUDGE Comparing Assistant