The Gaucht High Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution, holding that the long lapse of time and absence of counsel indicated the petitioners were not keen to pursue the matter.
Writ petition dismissed as 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
GAHC010009222011
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5704/2011
SUNIL CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA
SON OF LATE SHRI JAI KRISHNA LAL HQ CE, PROJECT UDAYAK, DOOM DOOMA, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA and ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT and HIGHWAYS GOVT. OF INDIA, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
2:SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL and TRAINING GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001.
3:SECRETARY
BORDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4TH FLOOR B. WING SENA BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110011.
4:DIRECTOR GENERAL
BORDER ROADS SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN RING ROAD NARAINA DELHI CANTT. NEW DELHI-110010
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.S NATH
Page No.# 2/3
Advocate for the Respondent : C.G.C.
Linked Case : WP(C)/5638/2011 SANDEEP SINGH S/O- LT. J.B. SINGH HQ CE PROJECT UDAYAK DOOMDOOMA DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and ORS REP. BY THE SECY. MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT and HIGHWAYS GOVT. OF INDIA SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:SECRETARY DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL and TRAINING GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI- 110001. 3:SECRETARY BORDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4TH FLOOR B. WING SENA BHAWAN NEW DELHI- 110011. 4:DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER ROADS SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN RINGH ROAD NARAINA DELHI CANTT. NEW DELHI- 110010. -----------Advocate for : MS.S NATH Advocate for : C.G.C. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA and ORS
Page No.# 3/3
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
Date : 12-06-2023
None appears for the writ petitioners when the matters are called up.
Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC is present on behalf of the official respondents.
This matter pertains to the year 2011 and the record reveals that the petitioners’ counsel was absent even on the previous occasion.
In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that due to long lapse of time, the
writ petitioners are not keen to pursue these matters any further.
As such, these matters stand dismissed as non-prosecution.
JUDGE
GS
Comparing Assistant
Sunil Chandra Srivastava
The Union of India
Suman Shyam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
