Gauhati High Court
Nasib Talukdar And 5 Ors vs The Union Of India And 7 Ors on 12 June, 2019
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010010042014
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 2612/2014
1:NASIB TALUKDAR and 5 ORS.
S/O LT. ARAN TALUKDAR, VILL. BARAPETA RSERVE, MOUZA- KHARIJA
BIJNI, P.O. MAINAMATA VIA BARPETA ROAD, DIST- BARPETA, NOW
BASKA, ASSAM, PIN-781215
2: INDRA BAHADUR CHETRY
S/O LT. AMAR BAHADUR CHETRY
VILL. BARAPETA RESERVE
MOUZA- KHARIJA BIJNI
P.O. MAINAMATA VIA BARPETA ROAD
DIST- BARPETA
NOW BASKA
ASSAM
PIN-781315
3: BILLAL HUSSAIN
S/O JAYEN UDDIN AHMED
VILL. BARAPETA
P.O. MAINAMATA VIA BARPETA ROAD
DIST- BARPETA
NOW BASKA
ASSAM
PIN-781315
4: AMIR MONDAL
S/O LT. MARTUZ MONDAL
VILL. CHUKRUNGBARI PATHAR
P.O. CHUKRUNGBARI
DIST- BARPETA
NOW BASKA
ASSAM
5: ABDUL BATEN SOBAN MONDAL
S/O LT. ABDUS
Page No.# 2/3
VILL. UNNEKURI
P.O. CHUKRUNGBARI
DIST- BARPETA
NOW BASKA
ASSAM
6: JAHURUDDIN AHMED
S/O MAINUDDIN
P.O. MOINAMATA
DIST- BARPETA
NOW BASKA
ASSA
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 7 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY BM, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GHY-6
3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE B DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GHY-6
4:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
WELFARE OF PLAIN TRIBES AND BACKWARD CLASSES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GHY-6
5:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL AREA DISTRICT
HAVING ITS H.QRS. AT KOKRAJHAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE COUNCILOR
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
6:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
BARPETA
7:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
BASKA
MUSHALPUR
8:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
Page No.# 3/3
BARNAGAR REVENUE CIRCLE
SORBHOG
DIST- BARPETA
ASSAM
9:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
JALAH REVENUE CIRCLE
JALAH
DIST- BAKS
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A R SIKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 12-06-2019 Mr. AR Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that he may be allowed to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file afresh, if so advised.
Mr. AK Bhuyan, learned counsel for the BTAD submits that the writ petition has become infructuous.
Prayer of the petitioners' counsel is allowed.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, as prayed for.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant