Page No. 1/5 GAHC010097582026 2026:GAU-AS:7541 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./85/2026 SAYED ISFAK HUSSAIN S/O. LATE SAMSUDDIN AHMED, R/O. VILL- BAGACHALA, MOZA- DIPILA, P.S.- SIPAJHAR, MANGALDOI, P.O.- TENGARA, DIST. -DARRANG, ASSAM. PIN NO. 784148 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AND LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, (DMLR) DISPUR, GHY-6, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. 2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AND LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT DMLR DISPUR GHY - 06 KAMRUP M ASSAM. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DARRANG MONGALDOI ASSAM PIN - 784125 4:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GHY - 03 KAMRUP M ASSAM. 5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER Page No. 2/5 WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GHY - 03 KAMRUP M ASSAM 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MANGALDOI WATER RESOURCES DIVISION MANGALDOI DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125. 7:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06 KAMRUP M ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : A JUBARIA, A KASHYAP,MR. R C DAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, WATER RESOURCE,SC, FINANCE,SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 29.05.2026 Heard Mr. R.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; and Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 3. 2. The present review petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking review of an Order dated 04.05.2026 passed in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2260/2026. 3. In order to examine the ground of review, pleaded in this review petition, a reference has to be made to an Order dated 17.03.2026 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in another writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3097/2024, also preferred by the review petitioner earlier to Page No. 3/5 W.P.[C] no. 2260/2026. In the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3097/2024, the following Order was passed on 17.03.2025 :- Shri R.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has instructions not to press this writ petition. He has also prayed for a liberty. Ms. M. Barman, learned State Counsel, Assam and Ms. Tinlung, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri R.M. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department have submitted that though they do not have any objection with regard to the aspect of withdrawal of this writ petition, they have serious reservations on the aspect of granting liberty. A similar stand has been taken by Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. Under the aforesaid circumstances, while this writ petition is dismissed on withdrawal, it is made clear that only on a fresh cause of action, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court. 4. Neither any review petition nor any writ appeal has been preferred against the Order dated 17.03.2025, extracted above. 5. After dismissal of the writ petition on withdrawal subject to rider that the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court only in the event of a fresh cause of action, the review petitioner herein as the writ petitioner had preferred the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2260/2026. In the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2260/2026, filed on 27.04.2026, the review petitioner herein as a writ petitioner therein had projected that after the Order dated 17.03.2026, the petitioner had preferred a Representation dated 23.03.2026 and its non- consideration had given rise to a fresh cause of action. After examining the nature of liberty granted by the Order dated 17.03.2026 by the Coordinate Bench and taking a view that filing of the Representation dated 23.03.2026 would not give rise to a fresh cause of action, the writ petition was dismissed by the Order dated 04.05.2026, the review of which has been sought for by the present review petition. Page No. 4/5 6. It is stated that the Court has erred in law under Order I Rule 3 and Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure [CPC], 1908 on the point of mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties as a number of necessary parties were not impleaded as party-respondents in either in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3097/2024. In support of his submission, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the review petitioner has referred to a decision in Puspendra Nath Borah vs. Lalit Chandra Borah, AIR 2015 GAU 41. 7. In the decision in Puspendra Nath Borah [supra], the Hon’ble Court after examining the expression, ‘sufficient grounds’ appearing in clause [3] of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, has observed that a plaintiff may be permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file afresh only if, defects are found to be of form and not for substance. 8. On a query, Mr. Das has explained that the defect in the form of non-joinder or mis- joinder on the part of the review petitioner had occurred when he preferred the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3097/2024 and such defect did not occur in W.P.[C] no. 2260/2026. A defect, even if it is accepted the contention of the review petitioner as correct, the defect occurred in W.P.[C] no. 3097/2024, not in W.P.[C] no. 2260/2026. Therefore, this Court which did not pass the Order dated 17.03.2026 in W.P.[C] no. 3097/2024, cannot review the Order dated 17.03.2026 on the ground that of such formal defect. 9. It is relevant to mention that in the Order dated 04.05.2026, passed in W.P.[C] no. 2260/2026, this Court has held that the Representation dated 23.03.2026 could not have given rise to a new cause of action. After the order of dismissal on withdrawal with the rider on 17.03.2026, this Court does not find any merit to entertain this review petition, it being bereft of any merit. As the ground on which the review is sought for is not a permissible one under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC which are made applicable also in a writ petition. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. JUDGE Page No. 5/5 Comparing Assistant