Allowed

Indira Taloh v. the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC16 Jun 2022MC(WP(C))/2/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court restored a writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution by recalling the default order. The court ordered the payment of Rs. 1,000 court costs to the State Legal Service Authority and listed the matter for hearing post-summer vacation.

What did the court decide?

Restored the writ petition to file; recalled the order of dismissal dated 11.05.2022; allowed the interim order to continue.

Indira Taloh Vs the State of Ap and 2 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040006862022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : MC(WP(C)) 2/2022

¶5

1:Indira Taloh W/o Sri T. Taloh, R/o Diking Village, Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF AP and 2 Ors. Represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.

¶8

2:The Deputy Commissioner East Siang District Pasighat AP

¶9

3:The Extra Assistant Commissioner cum Estate Officer East Siang District Pasighat A

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : Tony Pertin

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP)

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.MEDHI

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 16-06-2022

¶16

Heard Shri T. Pertin, learned counsel for the applicant/writ petitioner, who, by means of this petition has prayed for restoration of the WP(C)324(AP)/2020 which was dismissed on default on 11.05.2022.

¶17

This Court in the order dated 11.05.2022 has also recorded that on the earlier dates of 05.01.2022 and 10.03.2022, the petitioner was unrepresented and for the said reasons the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and the interim order also vacated.

¶18

Shri Pertin, learned counsel for the applicant/writ petitioner submits that for the reasons pleaded in paragraphs 3 & 4, the petitioner could not appear due to the reasons beyond control of the petitioner and there is no lack of bona fide to pursue the litigation. It is further submitted that the petitioner has a good case on merits and dismissal of the writ petition on technical ground would cause immense prejudice and miscarriage of justice.

¶19

Ms. R. Basar learned State counsel, however submits the reasons cited in the order of dismissal dated 11.05.2022 are good reasons, as on the earlier occasions the petitioner had remained absent, when the matter was called for.

¶20

After hearing the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would require restoration of the writ petition by recalling the order of dismissal dated 11.05.2022, however, on payment of the cost of Rs.1,000/(Rupees One Thousand) only to the Arunachal Pradesh State Legal Service Authority. The cost be deposited within 15 (fifteen) days from today.

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

The writ petition accordingly stands restored to file the order dated 11.05.2022 stands recall. It is further submits that the interim order passed the writ petition shall continue to operate.

¶23

Since the writ petition is of the year 2020, and the pleadings have been exchanged, the same be listed for hearing immediately after the Summer Vacation.

¶24

Accordingly, the Misc.case stands disposed of.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Indira Taloh v. the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indira Taloh v. the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Ap Vs M/s T. K and Sons Enterprises

Kasumoty Tayeng Vs the State of Ap and 10 Ors.

Nabam Yadik and 28 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 16 Ors.

(Mrs) DabwunTunglim Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Tapan Mondal Vs the State of Ap and 6 Ors.

Tater Tamut and 12 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 4 Ors.