Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010051762022 2025:GAU-AS:9454 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1898/2022 JALJALI RIVER BRIDGE COMMITTEE CUM DALONG NIRMAN AND PARICHALANA SAMITEE AND 2 ORS A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE REGISTRATION OF SOCIETIES ACT, 1860, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PAHARPARA, NAGARBARA, P.O. NAGARBARA, DIST KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781127 2: SHRI DWIPEN MEDHI S/O LATE JOGENDRA MEDHI R/O VILL- PAHARPARA DOKUENI P.O. NAGARBARA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781127 (PRESIDENT OF JALJALI RIVER BRIDGE COMMITTEE). 3: MD. FIROJUL HAQUE S/O MAZIBUR RAHMAN R/O BHAKHURADIA P.O. TUPAMANI NAGARBARA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM (SECRETARY OF JALJALI RIVER BRIDGE COMMITTEE) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT Page No.# 2/4 ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 3:THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KAMRUP AMINGAON KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781031 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DIVISION ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP AMINGAON KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781031. 6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER NAGARBARA REVENUE CIRCLE NAGARBARA PIN-781127 7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROAD GUWAHATI DIVISION GUWAHATI ASSA For the Petitioner(s) : None appears For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Nath, Sr. Govt. Advocate Ms. M.D. Borah, Standing Counsel Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 23.07.2025 None appears on behalf of the petitioners on call. 2. Ms. M.D. Borah, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Transport Department and Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the other State respondents. 3. It is relevant to take note of that when the instant writ petition was listed on 14.07.2025, this Court taking into account that the petitioners were not represented did not pass any order for the ends of justice thereby granting the petitioners a further chance. 4. This Court has also taken note of the submission so made by Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate on the earlier occasion to the effect that the instant writ petition has became infructuous in view of the fact that the bridge upon which the petitioners claim a right to collect toll is no longer usable and operational. 5. Taking into account the above, it appears therefore that the petitioners are not interested in the instant proceedings, for Page No.# 4/4 which, the instant writ petition stands dismissed for non- prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant