Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8525 (GAU)

MD. SULEMAN ALI AND 4 ORS v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

WP(C)/1394/2023 · 2025-09-07

Devashis Baruah

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010044742023 2024:GAU-AS:5376 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1394/2023 MD. SULEMAN ALI AND 4 ORS SON OF LATE ABED ALI, R/O- VILL. FALIHAMARIPATHAR, P.O.- FALIHAMARIPATHAR, P.S.- BHURAGAON, DIST.- MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782127. 2: MD. JURAB ALI SON OF LATE KAMARUDDIN R/O- VILL. FALIHAMARIPATHAR P.O.- FALIHAMARIPATHAR P.S.- BHURAGAON DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782127. 3: MD. HANIF ALI SON OF- MAKBUL HANNAN R/O- VILL. FALIHAMARIPATHAR P.O.- FALIHAMARIPATHAR P.S.- BHURAGAON DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 PIN- 782127. 4: MD. NURUL AMIN SON OF- LT. HANIF ALI R/O- VILL. HATILOROWAPATHAR P.O.- TENGAGURI P.S.- BHURAGAON DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782127. 5: MD. MAHIDUL ISLAM SON OF LT. NURUDDIN R/O- VILL. BALIPARA P.O.- FALIHAMARIPATHAR P.S.- BHURAGAON DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782127 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS ASSAM GUWHAATI-5 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 3:THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOOD Page No.# 3/4 CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS MORIGAON PIN- 782105. 4:THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS MORIGAON. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782105. 6:MD. SHAHJAHAN ALI SON OF AKBAR ALI RESIDENT OF VILL- TENGAGURI P.O.- FALIHAMARI POTHA P.S.- LAHARIGHAT PIN- 782105 For the Petitioner(s) : None appears For the Respondent(s) : Mr. G. Bokolial, Govt. Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 08.09.2025 None appears on behalf of the petitioners on call. 2. Mr. G. Bokolial, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the State respondents. 3. It is seen that on the earlier occasion also, none had Page No.# 4/4 appeared on behalf of the petitioners. 4. Taking into account the above, it therefore appears that the petitioners have lost interest in the instant proceedings, for which, the instant writ petition stands dismissed for non- prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant