Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010057042022 2026:GAU-AS:6564 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2249/2022 BISWAJIT DEY AND 2 ORS S/O- LATE AMULYA CH. DEY, VILL- DURGANAGAR PART-IV, P.O- UDHARBOND, PIN-788030, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM 2: ANANDA MOHAN DEY S/O- LATE NARESH CH. DEY VILL- DURGANAGAR PART-IV VIP ROAD P.O- UDHARBOND PIN-788030 DIST- CACHAR ASSAM 3: MINATI RANI PAUL S/O- LATE SUKAMOY DEY VILL-6TH MILE VIP ROAD' NEAR RAJIB GANDHI STADIUM P.O- UDHARBOND PIN-788030 DIST- CACHAR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS REP. THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPTT., SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, Page No.# 2/4 GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPTT. SACHIVALAYA DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS PANJABARI ARANYA BHAWAN GUWAHATI-781037. 4:THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS SOUTHERN ASSAM CIRCLE P.O- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM 5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER CACHAR FOREST DIVISION SILCHAR ASSAM 6:THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-21 7:THE REGIONAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD SILCHAR P.O- SILCHAR PIN-788001 DIST- CACHAR 8:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER SILCHAR ELECTRICAL DIVISION-II APDCL CACHAR MEHARPUR SILCHAR PIN-788015 9:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIST- CACHAR ASSAM Page No.# 3/4 10:ASHIM PAUL PROPRIETOR SHREE KRISHNA CRUSHER S/O- LATE HIMANGSHU PAUL CLUB ROAD SILCHAR ( GITANJALI HOTEL) P.O- SILCHAR PIN-788001 CACHAR ASSAM 11:KESHAB DUTTA VILLAGE UTTARPARA P.O- UDARBOND PIN-788030 DIST- CACHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR . B MALAKAR, MR D SARMA,MS P SHARMA,MR. P K GARODIA,MS K DAS,MS P SHARMA,MR. T ISLAM,MS M ROY,MS. T ROY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, MR. A BORUA,MS. P BHATTACHARYA (R- 10,11),GA, ASSAM,SC, PCB BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 13.05.2026 None appears for the petitioners, despite the matter being call twice today. Ms. P. Bhattacharya, Mr. R.R. Gogoi and Mr. R. Talukdar are present for the respondents. Since, despite the names of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners being reflected in the cause list and the matter having been called out twice before the Court, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Page No.# 4/4 In view of the non-appearance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter stands dismissed for non-prosecution. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Kaushik Goswami JUDGE