Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14755 (GAU)

SHRI ASHIM KR DAS v. SHRI SANJIV SHYAM AND ORS

I.A.(Civil)/3169/2026 · 2026-09-17

Nelson Sailo

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010192942026 2026:GAU-AS:13887 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3169/2026 SHRI ASHIM KR DAS S/O. LATE SUDHIR CH. DAS, R/O. VILLAGE TULAGRAM PT-II, P.O.- SONAIMUKH, P.S. SONAI, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 788119 VERSUS SHRI SANJIV SHYAM AND ORS THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS ROAD DEPARTMENT, GUWAHATI-06 2:SHRI PRADIP KR NATH THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS ROAD DEPARTMENT ESTABLISHMENT BRANCH DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:SHRI HEMANTA DEWRI BHARALI THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS ROAD DEPARTMENT ESTT. CELL-II CHANDMARI ASSAM GUWAHATI-03 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H LASKAR, MR. P K DEKA,MR. R KARIM,J MEDHI Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 18.09.2026 Heard Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the applicant, who submits that by filing this application, the applicant seeks impleadment of Sanjiv Shyam with the designation as Commissioner & Special Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works (Road) Department, Guwahati. In the result, the learned counsel submits that he may be impleaded as the respondent No. 1 instead of Shri Paban Terang, the former Commissioner & Special Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works (Road) Department. The learned counsel, further, submits that the Chief Engineer, Public Works Road Department, has also been changed, the earlier incumbent Sanjiv Shyam (respondent No. 3) has now been replaced by Shri Hemanta Dewri Bharali. He, therefore, submits that the earlier incumbent may be allowed to be changed by Shri Hemanta Dewri Bharali. The learned counsel for the opposite party has no objection to the prayer. In view of above, the application for impleadment as indicated in the application is hereby allowed. The interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant