Disposed

Abdul Jalil v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 Mar 2023WP(C)/1457/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging fishery regulations was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had filed an undertaking in an earlier petition deemed sufficient, rejecting arguments that a separate pending title suit with injunction rendered the present petition maintainable yet lacking a necessary party. The court granted liberty to withdraw and refile after modifications.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to withdraw and refile the petition after necessary modifications.

Abdul Jalil Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010046402023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1457/2023

¶5

ABDUL JALIL S/O- NASIB ALI, R/O- KANGTAR, P.O.- JADHUTILLA, DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERY, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶8

2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V.I.P. ROAD CHACHAL GUWAHATI- 36. 3:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AFDC LTD. BVR VIP ROAD RANGPUR SILCHAR- 9.

¶9

4:THE ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER KANGTAR BEEL KARIMGANJ.

¶10

5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ

¶11

Page No.# 2/2

¶12

P.O. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S B CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AFDC

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER

¶15

17.03.2023

¶16

Heard Ms. SB Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri P. Sarmah, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC.

¶17

Shri Sarmah, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC however submits that in view of the undertaking made by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶18

Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner however refutes the said allegation by stating that a person in the name of the petitioner had, in the meantime, instituted a Title Suit wherein there was an injunction by which the petitioner was refrained from operating fishery for a considerable period of time. However, it appears that the said incumbent has not been made a party respondent though reference has been made in the writ petition.

¶19

Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, prays for permission to withdraw this writ petition and re-file the same by making the necessary modification.

¶20

The instant writ petition accordingly stands dismissed with liberty as prayed for.

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

Comparing Assistant

Abdul Jalil v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Jalil v. the State of Assam and 4 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

Mizanur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Biraj Mohan Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Ganesh Das @ Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Rwirup Muchahary Vs the Stateof Assam and 3 Ors.

Himani Pathak Vs State Bank of India and Anr.

Kabijul Ali Laskar and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 15 Ors.