Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5998 (GAU)

PRITAM NARZARY v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.

WP(C)/6321/2022 · 2026-05-07

Devashis Baruah

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010187582022 2026:GAU-AS:6472 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6321/2022 PRITAM NARZARY S/O SRI BIKASH NARZARY, R/O VILL-DAWAGURI NO. 1, P.O.-GOLADNAGI, P.S.-GOSAIGAON, DIST-KOKRAJHAR, BTAD, ASSAM, PIN-783361 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM 2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HEAD OF FOREST ASSAM REHABARI KAMRUP METRO GUWAHATI-781008 3:THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (T) LOWER ASSAM ZONE KACHARIGHAT GUWAHATI-781001 KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 4:THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST LOWER ASSAM SOCIAL FORESTRY CIRCLE BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-783380 5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER Page No.# 2/3 AIE VALLEY FOREST DIVISION BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-783380 6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-78338 For the Petitioner(s) : XXXX For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. R. Gogoi, SC, Forest BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 08.05.2026 None has appeared on behalf of the Petitioner on call. Mr. R. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Forest Department. 2. Mr. R. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Forest Department informed this Court on 27.04.2026 that the instant writ petition had already become infructuous. Under such circumstances, this Court enquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner as to whether anything further survives in the present proceedings. The learned counsel for the Petitioner as was recorded in the order dated 27.04.2026, Page No.# 3/3 sought for a further opportunity as she had no instruction in the matter. 3. Taking into account that the Petitioner is not represented today, it appears that the Petitioner had lost interest in the present proceedings for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant