Dismissed

M/S. M.K. Enterprise v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC26 Apr 2022WP(C)/7020/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, representing an enterprise, withdrew the writ petition seeking a letter of appointment for construction work after a letter informing of payment was issued. The court allowed the withdrawal with liberty to file afresh.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of writ petition allowed with liberty to file afresh as and when any fresh cause of action arises.

M/S. M.K. Enterprise Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010211472021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/7020/2021

¶5

M/S. M.K. ENTERPRISE

¶6

TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR VIZ., MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA, AGE-35 YEARS, S/O RAJ KUMAR GUPTA, R/O RANGIA, SANTIPUR, WARD NO. 5, P.O. AND P.S.-RANGIA, DIST- KAMRUP (ASSAM)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.

¶9

TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, NEW DELHI

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶11

TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION DISPUR

¶12

GUWAHATI-6

¶13

3:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION KAHILIPARA

¶14

GUWAHATI-781019

¶15

4:PRINCIPAL I/C RANGIA COLLEGE RANGIA ASSA

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU

¶18

Page No.# 2/2

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

¶21

ORDER

¶22

26-04-2022

¶23

Heard Ms. N. J. Begum, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government counsel for the respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Higher Education Department for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

¶24

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the authority of Rangia College issued a letter under Ref. No. RC/24/Misc/2022/54 dated 24.03.2022 to him informing that he shall be paid Rs. 4,00,000/- in respect of construction of a part of the connected RUSA building in the said college and the remaining amount shall be paid to him in installment basis as per his estimated cost after receipt of fund from the Higher Education Department of the State.

¶25

In view of the above, on instructions of the petitioner, Ms. Begum, learned counsel, prays for withdrawal of this writ petition with a liberty to file afresh as and when any fresh cause of action arises.

¶26

Prayer is allowed.

¶27

Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed on withdrawal.

¶28

Liberty as prayed for, so granted.

¶29

Copy of the communication dated 24.03.2022 issued by the Principal of Rangia College, Rangia to the petitioner, be kept as a part of the record.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

M/S. M.K. Enterprise v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. M.K. Enterprise v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charan Borgayary Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Hitesh Chandra Ray Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Ayat Banu Begum Vs the State of Assam and 15 Ors.

Manik Borah and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Lachit Chutia Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Surjan Nessa Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.