Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010032902026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/556/2026 PADUMI BHUYAN W/O LATE PABIN BHUYAN ALIAS POBIN BHUYAN, R/O VILL. PURNAKHUMDUM, P.O. LAKHARPARA, P.S. KAYAN, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN 781350 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE RELIEF AND REHABILITATION BRANCH, AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (R) AMINGAON ASSAM PIN-781031 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-0 Advocate for the Petitioner : S I AKAND, MR A CHOUDHURY,MR. R Deka Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM,SC, FINANCE Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 20.03.2026 Heard Mr. R Deka, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel, Department of Revenue & Disaster Management, Assam, appearing for respondent no. 1 and Ms. M Barman, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent no. 2 & 3. 2. The present Interlocutory Application has been instituted, praying for recall of an order dated 21.01.2026, by which this Court, noticing the instructions issued by the respondents that an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) as ex-gratia payment has already been released and deposited in the account of the petitioner, proceeded to hold that the petitioner’s grievance, having been redressed. 3. In the present application, in paragraph 5, the applicant has made statements, which, on a perusal, reveals that the order dated 21.01.2026, was so passed at the instance of the two counsels representing the respondents. However, on a comparison of the statements made in paragraph 5 with the order dated 21.01.2026, this Court finds that no such persuasion is seen to have been made by the two counsel representing the respondents, requiring the Court to dispose of the matter. 4. Accordingly, this Court finds that the contentions made in paragraph 5 of the present Interlocutory Application is clearly unwarranted and uncalled for. 5. Mr. R Deka, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said contentions made in paragraph 5 was so made on account of an inadvertent error and he did not intend to blame the two counsel representing the respondents, in any manner. He submits that he be permitted to withdraw the present Interlocutory Application, with liberty to re-file the same. Page No.# 3/3 6. In view of the above discussion, the projections as made in paragraph 5 of the present Interlocutory Application, being found to be erroneous, this Court, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, permits the applicant to withdraw the present Interlocutory Application, with liberty to re-file the same, if so advised. 7. Accordingly, the present Interlocutory Application stands dismissed, with liberty, as prayed for. JUDGE Comparing Assistant