Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14438 (GAU)

Union of India and 3 Ors. v. Sh. Debabrata Das

I.A.(Civil)/163/2026 · 2026-09-16

Kalyan Rai Surana

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030006352026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/163/2026 Union of India and 3 Ors. Through the Home Secretary, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 VERSUS Sh. Debabrata Das S/o Sh Birendra Kumar Das, Resident of Ward No. 5 Kmeswar, Tangibari, North Tripura - 799 253 Currently at Sector Headzuarters, BSF, Aizawl, Mizoram - 796025 Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms Zairemsangpuii Advocate for the Respondent : Linked Case : WP(C)/80/2026 Sh. Debabrata Das S/o Sh. Birendra Kumar Das Resident of Ward No - 5 Kameswar Tangibari North Tripura - 799253. Currently at - Sector Headquarters BSF Aizawl Mizoran VERSUS Union of India and 3 Ors. Page No.# 2/3 Through the Home Secretary North Block Delhi - 110001 2:Inspector General Mizoram and Cachar Frontier BSF Masimpur Silchar Assam 3:Deputy Inspector General Sector Headquarter BSF Aizawl Mizoram 4:Commandant 191 BN BSF Aizawl Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Lalrinawmi Chhakchhuak Advocate for the Respondent : Ms Zairemsangpuii CGC for R 1-4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA JUDGEMENT Date : 17.09.2026 Heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the applicant and Ms. L. Chhakchhuak, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. It is noticed that this interlocutory application is filed under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC for vacating the interim order dated 29.06.2026, passed in the connected WP(C) No. 80/2026. 3. In this regard, the Court is of the considered opinion that the nature Page No.# 3/3 of orders passed in a writ petition cannot be equated to an injunction order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. 4. Therefore, the learned CGC prays for and is permitted to withdraw this interlocutory application with liberty to file an appropriate interlocutory application. 5. Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands closed with liberty as prayed for. JUDGE Comparing Assistant