Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010202322021 2026:GAU-AS:763 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6694/2021 VINCENT DAIMARY S/O LT. SUMENDRA DAIMARY, R/O VILL KALBARI, PO SASTRAPARA, PS AND DISTRICT UDALGURI, BTC (BTR), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDALGURI BTC (BTR) ASSAM PIN-784509 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DARRANG MANGALDOI PIN-784125 6:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Page No.# 2/3 KOKRAJHAR BTAD (BTAR) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R M CHOUDHURY, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R BARPUJARI (SC, FINANCE AND SC, REVENUE & DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, R- 1,3 ), MR. S R RABHA (SC, BTC, R-6),MS. S SARMA (GA, ASSAM, R-2,4,5) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 22.01.2026 None appears for the petitioner on call. Ms. M. Barman, learned State Counsel; Mr. N. R. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, BTC; and Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, are present. The claim of the petitioner is for payment of enhanced ex gratia amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) only pursuant to the Notifications dated 15.11.2014 & 06.12.2014 on account of the death of his father, who reportedly was killed by the Bodo Extremists on 26.06.1989 at Udalguri weekly market. The petitioner, being the next of kin of the deceased, has been granted ex gratia of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only and Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only, making a total amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) only under the Notification/Policy existed during the relevant period. Since the Page No.# 3/3 petitioner has already been paid ex gratia amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- under the Policy/Notification in vogue then, prima facie, the petitioner would not be entitled to any further amount, particularly under the Notification of the State which has been came into force subsequently. Upon consideration, it appears that the petitioner has realized that he may not be entitled to any relief and therefore appears to be not interested to pursue this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant