Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8657 (GAU)

MANUJ DIHINGIA AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

WP(C)/1754/2022 · 2025-05-01

Kardak Ete

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010046552022 2025:GAU-AS:5414 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1754/2022 MANUJ DIHINGIA AND ANR. S/O MR. BIRESWAR DIHINGIA R/O VILL. GOHAIN GAON, P.O. GOHAIN GAON, DHEMAJI, ASSAM 787057 DIN-06903643 2: BINA DIHINGIA D/O MR.LAKHI DIHINGIA R/O C/O MANUJ DIHINGIA R/O VILL. GOHAIN GAON P.O. GOHAIN GAON DHEMAJI ASSAM 787057 DIN-0690366 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001 2:REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES GUWAHATI SHILONG MINISTRY OF CORPORATED AFFAIRS UNION OF INDIA 5TH FLOOR PRITHVI PLANET BEHING HANUMAN MANDIR ULUBARI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI-781007 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. K VERMA, MR. A J HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. S C KEYAL (r-2),MR. S K MEDHI (r-1,2) Page No.# 2/3 Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/1718/2022 MANUJ DIHINGIA AND ANR. S/O MR. BIRESWAR DIHINGIA R/O VILL. GOHAIN GAON P.O. GOHAIN GAON DHEMAJI ASSAM 787057 DIN-06903643 2: BINA DIHINGIA D/O MR.LAKHI DIHINGIA R/O C/O MANUJ DIHINGIA R/O VILL. GOHAIN GAON P.O. GOHAIN GAON DHEMAJI ASSAM 787057 DIN-06903666 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI-110001 2:REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES GUWAHATI SHILONG MINISTRY OF CORPORATED AFFAIRS UNION OF INDIA 5TH FLOOR PRITHVI PLANET BEHING HANUMAN MANDIR ULUBARI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI-781007 ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. A J HAZARIKA Advocate for : appearing for UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE O R D E R 02.05.2025 None appears for the petitioner on call. Page No.# 3/3 Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned CGC appears for the respondent no.1. It is noticed that on 28.04.2024, there was no representation from both the sides and accordingly, the Court has observed that if the petitioner is not represented on the next date, an adverse orders may be passed. Having considered the repeated non-representation for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may not be interested to pursue the matter any longer. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant