NILIMA BORO KALITA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
WP(C)/528/2026 · 2026-02-24
Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Writ Petition (Civil)body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5005 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5005 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010285942025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/528/2026 NILIMA BORO KALITA D/O MOTIRAM BORO, R/O VILL. DHEKENABARI, P.S. CHHAYGAON, PIN 781124, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6 2:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR 4TH FLOOR BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER CHHAYGAON ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION APDCL LAR CHHAYGAON PIN-781124 DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM 4:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
Page No.# 2/3 MIRZA ELECTRICAL DIVISION APDCL MIRZA DIST. KAMRUP ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S H SIKDAR, MR. S HUSSAIN,MR S HOQUE Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL,
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 25.02.2026 Heard Shri S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL. This matter was listed on two earlier occasions when the learned counsel for the APDCL was directed to obtain instructions. The writ petition pertains to a grievance of disconnection of electricity. It is the case of the petitioner that electricity connection was duly given by assigning a consumer ID No. and also Meter No. However, on 03.12.2025, a notice was issued to her to show cause as to why the electricity should not be disconnected. Though the response was filed, the electricity was disconnected on 06.12.2025, for which the present writ petition has been instituted. Shri Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel, APDCL has informed that instructions have been received, as per which, the electricity has been reconnected. The said aspect has not been disputed by Shri Hoque, the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid development, this Court is of the opinion that there
Page No.# 3/3 is no requirement to continue this writ petition any further. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant