Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040012432025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/335/2025 Khengyaso Kri Son of LAte Talilum Kri, resident of Village Danglat, PO and PS Tezu, Lohit District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The Union of India and 5 Ors represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Power(GOI), Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110001 2:The Chief Executive Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd B-9 Qutab Institutional Area Karwaria Sarai New Delhi 110016 (reg office) 3:The Nodal Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Northeastern Region Dongtiah Lower Nograh Lepalang Shillong Meghalaya 793006 4:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Land Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Page No.# 2/3 Civil Secretariat Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 791111 5:The Chief Manager Age: 0 Occupation : Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Tezu Lohit District 792001 6:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Lohit District Tezu Arunachal Pradesh 79200 Advocate for the Petitioner : Sunil Mow, Tenzin Chhoten,Tado Siga,Chanya Bangsia,Aruna Rai,Madan Mili,Ebo Mili,Sonam Tsomo,k N Maling Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, GA (AP),DSGI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 16-09-2026 Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that he may be allowed to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty to approach the appropriate forum. Mr. T. Meto, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI for the respondent/Union of India; Mr. N. Khera, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 5; and Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondent Nos. 4 & 6, are present. Page No.# 3/3 It is noticed that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 42/2024. On 05.05.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, had prayed for withdrawal of the said writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. The said prayer was not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents and accordingly, the said writ petition was dismissed on withdrawal by order dated 05.05.2026. The present writ petition has again been instituted on the same facts and grounds. In view of the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition would not be maintainable. It also appears that the claim of the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885. Considering above, the prayer for withdrawal is allowed. Accordingly, writ petition stands closed on withdrawal. It is needless to observe that the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum, as may be permissible under law, by filing an appropriate application, including an application for condonation of delay, if so advised. Needless to further observe that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim or on the question of limitation which would be dealt with by the appropriate forum in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant