Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4993 (GAU)

M/s Popu Enterprises v. The State of AP and 8 Ors

WP(C)/554/2024 · 2025-03-25

Budi Habung

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040016162024 2025:GAU-AP:384 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/554/2024 M/s Popu Enterprises Class 1-A registered Firm for Building, Roads and Electricals etc, A Sector, Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh represented by Shri Ratan Bagang, Son of Shri Taya Bagang, permanent resident of Village PO and PS Seijusa, Pakke Kessang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 8 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Secretary Rural Work Department Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh 3:The Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Work Department Itanagar Circle Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Superintending Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Work Department Itanagar Circle Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Executive Engineer Page No.# 2/3 Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Work Department Pakke Kessang Division Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 6:The Assistant Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Work Department Seijosa Sub Division Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 7:The Junior Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Work Department Seijosa Sub Division Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 8:M/s Eka Enterprses Age: 0 Occupation : Near SBI B Sector Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 9:M/s G B Enterprise Age: 0 Occupation : Dikrong Colony Nirjuli PO and PS Nirjuli Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Nikita Danggen, K Chotton,Honi Tana Tara,Oken Duggong Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), T Poha,Dilip Saikia,SC (RWD),Gimi Tarak Page No.# 3/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date: 26-03-2025 Mr. N. Kuru, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. H. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has instructions to withdraw this writ petition and prays accordingly. The prayer is allowed. Mr. G. Tarak, learned counsel for the respondents is present. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed on being withdrawn. JUDGE Comparing Assistant