Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9632 (GAU)

RANJUMA BEGUM AND 3 ORS v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

WP(C)/6083/2023 · 2026-07-16

Devashis Baruah

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010226102023 2026:GAU-AS:9852 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6083/2023 RANJUMA BEGUM AND 3 ORS WIFE OF LATE HASMAT ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE/ TOWN- AZARA HATKHUWAPARA, P.O. AND P.S.- AZARA, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781030, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM. 2: AMON ALI SON OF LATE HASMAT ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE/ TOWN- AZARA HATKHUWAPARA P.O. AND P.S.- AZARA GUWAHATI PIN- 781030 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP ASSAM. 3: MD. SUMAN ALI SON OF LATE HASMAT ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE/ TOWN- AZARA HATKHUWAPARA P.O. AND P.S.- AZARA GUWAHATI PIN- 781030 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP ASSAM. 4: MD. ABED ALI Page No.# 2/3 SON OF LATE MD. MOFIJ ALI RESIDENT OF VILL/ TOWN- MIKIRPARA DHARAPUR GUWAHATI PIN- 781039 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER/ SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, BLOCK-F, 1ST FLOOR, ASSAM SECRETARIAT (CIVIL), DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METRO LICHUBAGAN HENGRABARI GUWAHATI- 781036 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 3:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METRO LICHUBAGAN HENGRABARI GUWAHATI- 781036 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER AZARA REVENUE CIRCLE AZARA GUWAHATI- 781017 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(M) ASSAM Page No.# 3/3 Advocate for the petitioner(s): None appears Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. SR Baruah, Govt. Advocate B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 17.07.2026 None appears on behalf of the petitioners on call. 2. Mr. SR Baruah, the learned Govt. Advocate, Assam who appears on behalf of the respondents. 3. It is seen that this is the third time the petitioners have chosen not to appear before the Court. 4. Considering the above, it appears that the petitioners have lost interest in the present proceedings, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed for non- prosecution. 5. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant