BHASKAR MONI BARMAN AND ANR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
WP(C)/655/2025 · 2026-05-20
Manish Choudhury
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3280 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3280 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010018992025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/655/2025 BHASKAR MONI BARMAN AND ANR S/O- SAMBHU CHARAN BARMAN, VILLAGE- NO. 2 CHAPAGURI, P.O. AND P.S. DHALIGAON, DIST.- CHIRANG, ASSAM, PIN CODE- 783385 2: SAMBHU CHARAN BARMAN S/O- LATE SURENDRA CHANDRA BARMAN VILLAGE- NO. 2 CHAPAGURI P.O. AND P.S. DHALIGAON DIST.- CHIRANG ASSAM PIN CODE- 78338 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BTR KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CHIRANG AT KAJALGAON BTR ASSAM PIN- 783385 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHIRANG BTR
Page No.# 2/3 ASSAM PIN- 783385 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SIDLI REVENUE CIRCLE P.O.- SIDLI BTR ASSAM PIN- 783373 6:THE KAJALGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD P.O.- KAJALGAON P.S. DHALIGAON DIST.- CHIRANG BTR ASSAM PIN- 783380 7:THE CHAIRMAN OF KAJALGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD P.O.- KAJALGAON P.S. DHALIGAON DIST.- CHIRANG BTR ASSAM PIN- 78338 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS. J GHOSH,MS. U NANDA,MS A BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. M ALI (R-6,7),SC, BTC
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 21-05-2026 Ms. K.L.R. Yanthan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. N.R. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, BTC and Mr. N. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the State respondents are present.
Page No.# 3/3 Ms. Yanthan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition has been amicably settled between the parties and therefore, the petitioner does not want to proceed with the writ petition. In view of the above submission made by Ms. Yanthan, learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed on withdrawal.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant