MIBOM GAMNO v. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
WP(C)/186/2021 · 2025-02-02
Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4415 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4415 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040005622021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/186/2021 MIBOM GAMNO S/O SHRI EKI GAMNO, R/O MEKA-II VILLAGE, PO/PS ROING, LOWER DIBANG VALLEY DISTRICT, AP 2: NUSEP YAO Age: Occupation :
D/O SHRI MAKYON YAO R/O MEKA-II VILLAGE PO/PS ROING LOWER DIBANG VALLEY DISTT AP 3: ANTU LEGO Age: Occupation :
D/O SHRI TUTEM LEGO R/O MEKA-II VILLAGE PO/PS ROING LOWER DIBANG VALLEY DIST A VERSUS THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH REPRESENTED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER, ITANAGAR, AP 2:THE SECRETARY PANCHAYATI RAJ Age: 0 Occupation :
GOVT OF AP ITANAGAR
Page No.# 2/3 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Age: 0 Occupation :
LOWER DIBANG VALLEY DISTT ROING AP 4:THE MEMBER SECRETARY Age: 0 Occupation :
3-MEKA BLOCK LOWER DIBANG VALLEY DISTT ROING AP 5:TAPAK PERTIN Age: 0 Occupation :
DISTT PRESIDENT BJP R/O KANGKONG VILLAGE PO/PS ROING LOWER DIBANG VALLEY DISTT AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Nalo Pada, B Kamdak,N Nada,B Milli,T Dameng,Romjir Rakshap Advocate for the Respondent : Ajin Apang, Sr. Advocate, GA (AP)
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.MEDHI ORDER Date : 03-02-2025 Heard Mr. B. Kamdak, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. P. Pangu, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents and Ms. N. Anju, learned counsel for the State Election Commission of Arunachal Pradesh. Though the matter was at the stage of exchange of affidavits, the learned
Page No.# 3/3 counsel for the petitioners has informed that in the meantime, all the petitioners have been reinstated and therefore, there may not be any live cause of action to be adjudicated. The aforesaid submission is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is nothing left for adjudication and accordingly, the writ petition is closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant