Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010026572020 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/904/2020 M/S. STEEL AND GRIP AND ANR. A.T. ROAD, CHABUA-786184, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI MUKUT PHUKAN, R/O. A.T. ROAD, CHABUA-786184, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. 2: MUKUT PHUKAN S/O. LT. PITHURAM PHUKAN R/O. A.T. ROAD CHABUA-786184 DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM VERSUS THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AND 2 ORS. NEW TOWN PATH, LACHIT NAGAR, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI-781007, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. 2:THE RECOVERY OFFICER-II DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL NEW TOWN PATH LACHIT NAGAR G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI-781007 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 3:UNITED BANK OF INDIA A GOVT. INDIA UNDERTAKING HEAD OFFICE 11 HEMANTA BASU SARANI KOLKATA THROUGH ITS CHABUA BRANCH REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER CHABUA-786184 Page No.# 2/3 DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : DR B P TODI, MS.SHOMA DASGUPTA,MS SUPRIYA DASGUPTA,MS.SHOMA DASGUPTA,MR A NATH,DR ANKIT TODI,MS P AGARWAL Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A GANGULY (r-2), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 25.06.2025 None appears for the petitioners on call whereas Shri A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondent - Bank is present. On the last occasion i.e., 18.06.2025, the following order was passed. “None appears for the petitioners on call whereas Shri A Ganguly, learned counsel is present for the respondent no. 3 who, however submits that in spite of repeated reminders, the proper party, namely, Punjab and National Bank (PNB) has not been made a respondent. He has informed that in the year 2020, the erstwhile United Bank of India had amalgamated with the PNB. On the last occasion i.e. 28.05.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioners, who where appearing earlier, had informed about their withdrawal from the case. The matter was, accordingly directed to be listed after 2 weeks. As mentioned above, there is no representation even today. In the interest of justice, the matter is adjourned by a week. It is made clear that if there is further non-representation, this Court would pass appropriate order(s). On request, list this case on 25.06.2025.” Page No.# 3/3 It clearly appears that the petitioners are not interested to prosecute this case. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant