Writ petition seeking quashing of suspension orders against three petitioners was dismissed for non-prosecution as no petitioners appeared and the court found them uninterested in pursuing the matter despite the case being filed in 2011.
No relief granted as the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010220892011
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6621/2011
LUNKHOLET THDOU and 2 ORS
S/O LATE MANGSLEK THADOU, R/O VILL- KHOBUL, P.O.- MAHUR, P.S.DIMA-HASAO ASSAM
2: RAUANG RONGMAI S/O LATE PANJI RONGMAI R/O VILL- BINAKANDI P.O. and P.S.- BINAKANDI DIST- CACHAR ASSAM
3: SANGJUANG RONGMAI S/O LATE NUKUANDAI RONGMAI R.O. VILL- HAGJIR NAGAR HAFLONG P.O. and P.S. HAFLONG DIST- DIMA-HASAO ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SERETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEAD QUARTER ULUBARI GHY-7
ASSAM KHANAPARA GHY-22
Page No.# 2/3
ASSAM
4:THE DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISON RANGE KHANAPARA GHY-22 ASSAM 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT SUB-JAIL HAFLONG DIMA-HASAO ASSAM PIN NO. 788819 6:THE DY. COMMISSIONER DIMA-HASAO HAFLONG ASSAM PIN-788819 7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DIMA-HASAO HAFLONG ASSAM PIN NO.78881
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D C K HAZARIKA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
02.03.2021
No one appears for the petitioners on call.
Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel appears for all the respondents.
The petitioners’ prayer is for quashing the impugned suspension order dated 11.12.2008 in respect of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and suspension order dated 16.02.2009 in respect of the petitioner no.3.
Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel for the State respondents submits that the petitioner no.1 has retired from service whereas petitioner no.2 has expired. The petitioner no.3, on the other hand has
Page No.# 3/3
been reinstated in service and has been promoted.
On perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner no.1, it is seen that the petitioner no.1 Lunkholet Thdou was 52 years of age on 19.12.2011. As such, the petitioner no.1 would have retired in the year 2019.
As the petitioners are unrepresented, though the case is of the year 2011, it appears that the petitioners are not interested in pursuing this matter.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
LUNKHOLET THDOU and 2 ORS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
