HAFIZUR RAHMAN AND ANR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
WP(C)/3711/2026 · 2026-09-01
Manish Choudhury
Writ Petition (Civil)body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 13433 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 13433 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010146212026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3711/2026 HAFIZUR RAHMAN AND ANR S/O MONOWAR HUSSAIN, R/O VILLAGE BHIMKHAJ, P.O. KHALISAVITA, P.S. LAKHIPUR, DISTRICT GOALPARA, ASSAM.
2: TECHIRA R MARAK D/O DICKARSON SANGMA R/O 35 TONGAPARA TIKRIKILLA DISTRICT WEST GARO HILLS MEGHALAYA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.
2:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION ASSAM GUWAHATI-781032.
3:THE SUB REGISTRAR LAKHIPUR GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783129 4:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
Page No.# 2/3 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001.
5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-78312 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S C DAS, MR. H DAS,P BURAGOHAIN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. B DEKA(C.G.C.)R4,SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT,DY.S.G.I.
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 02-09-2026 Heard Mr. P. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 3 & 5; and Ms. A. Jain, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent no. 4. Mr. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in deference to the Order dated 14.08.2026, the petitioners have appeared before the Sub-Registrar, Lakhipur, Goalpara [Marriage Officer] for solemnization of their marriage and on their appearance, the marriage of the petitioners has been duly solemnized under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Mr. Buragohain has submitted that in view of the such development, the petitioners are not pressing this writ petition as the relief sought for by the
Page No.# 3/3 petitioners has been granted in the meantime. In view of the above fact situation, the writ petition stands closed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant