Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010016762025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/593/2025 FOKRUL ISLAM BARBHUIYA AND 2 ORS S/O LATE ABDUL HAQUE BARBHUIYA, VILL- DHOLAI MOLAI PT-II, P.O.- DHOLAI MOLAI, DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN-788161 2: ALFAJ UDDIN MAZUMDAR S/O LATE TAHIR ALI MAZUMDAR VILL- DHOLAI MOLAI PT-II P.O.-DHOLAI TEA ESTATE DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788165 3: MIZANUR RAHMAN LASKAR S/O MOHRAM ALI LASKAR VILL- DHOLAI MOLAI PT-I P.O.-DHOLAI SOUTH DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-78816 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, ASSAM, PANJABARI, JURIPAR, GUWAHATI 37 2:THE ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER ADITYA TOWER 2ND FLOOR NEAR DOWN TOWN HOSPITAL G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 Page No.# 2/3 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI P.O.-HAILAKANDI DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788151 4:THE DISTRICT DE-LIMITATION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER HAILAKANDI ZILLA PARISHAD P.O.-HAILAKANDI DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-78815 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R TALUKDAR, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., GA, ASSAM,SC, ASEC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 30.04.2025 There was no representation on behalf of the petitioners when the case was listed earlier on 24.03.2025, whereas, the learned counsel for all the State respondents were present on that day. When the case was called for the first occasion today, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. When the case is again called for the second occasion, there is absence of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. K. Konwar, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam & learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department for the respondent nos. 1, 3, & 4 and Mr. R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Election Commission for the respondent no. 2 are present. The learned counsel for the State respondents have submitted that the issue raised in Page No.# 3/3 this writ petition is covered by a common Judgment & Order dated 24.04.2025 passed in W.P. [C.] no. 5346/2024 and 31 [thirty-one] other writ petitions. In view of such non-representation on repeated occasions, the Court is persuaded to take a view that the petitioners are not interested to pursue this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant