Dismissed

Jorhat Gala Kirana Merchant Association v. the General Manager and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Feb 2024WP(C)/1974/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a railway circular alleging arbitrariness and constitutional violations. The Court accepted the respondent's affidavit detailing completed infrastructural upgrades, noted the lack of a rejoinder, and dismissed the petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as infructuous; interim order vacated.

Jorhat Gala Kirana Merchant Association Vs the… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010033862021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1974/2021

¶5

JORHAT GALA KIRANA MERCHANT ASSOCIATION HAVING ITS OFFICE AT JORHAT, ASSAM REP. BY THE SECY. SHRI RAJENDRA PRASAD LAHOTI, S/O. LT. BHANWAR LAL LAHOTI, R/O. MARWARI PATTY, JORHAT, ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE GENERAL MANAGER AND 5 ORS NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY MALIGAON, GUWAHATI, ASSAM.

¶8

2:THE STATION SUPERINTENDENT

¶9

(GOODS) NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY JORHAT ASSAM.

¶10

3:THE DY. CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER

¶11

NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI.

¶12

4:THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER

¶13

TINSUKIA DIVISION NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY TINSUKIA.

¶14

5:THE EXEUCTIVE DIRECTOR

¶15

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

GUWAHATI.

¶18

6:THE DY. COMMISSIONER

¶19

JORHAT DISTRICT JORHAT

¶20

For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. H. Jain, Advocate

¶21

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Barkataki, Standing Counsel

¶22

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 02.02.2024

¶25

Heard Ms. H. Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. A. Barkataki, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶26

The Petitioner herein has challenged the circular dated 25.11.2020 on the ground that the said circular is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

¶27

The Respondents have duly filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating inter alia that the infrastructural development works had already been completed on 04.10.2021 which includes a complete replacement of the old damaged AC sheet roofing of JT Goods Office, license porter room and merchant room. New tiles have been provided on the floors of the Goods Office, the labour room and the merchant room for a longer hall of the said premises. Aluminium windows with proper grills have also been provided replacing the earlier old windows and kota stone flooring has also been done at the front and back verandahs of the

¶28

Page No.# 3/3

¶29

Goods Office. The Good Office toilet has also undergone a drastic makeover and the toilet has been renovated with new flooring and walls as well as a new hand wash basin, etc. to benefit the labourers. It was also mentioned that all the earlier old and defective shutters of the Goods godown have also been replaced and individual water tank has been provided to avoid any disruption in service of water supply to the toilets, bathrooms, urinals etc. The said affidavit was filed on 19.05.2022.

¶30

When the matter was listed on 17.11.2023, this Court has put a specific question to the learned counsel for the Petitioner as to whether the grievances of the Petitioner have been duly addressed taking into account the infrastructural development works have been completed. On the said date, the learned counsel for the Petitioner sought for an opportunity for the purpose of filing a rejoinder affidavit. However, no such affidavit has been filed.

¶31

Taking into account that the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition have not been denied in spite of receiving the said affidavit as far back as in the month of May, 2022, this Court is of the opinion that the grievances of the Petitioner have been duly addressed to by the infrastructural development works and as such nothing further remains to be adjudicated in the instant writ petition for which the instant writ petition stands disposed of as infructuous.

¶32

Interim order passed, if any, stands vacated.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Jorhat Gala Kirana Merchant Association v. the General Manager and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jorhat Gala Kirana Merchant Association v. the General Manager and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indra Mohan Kachari Vs the Life Insurance Corp. of India and 2 Ors.

Vikram Ahand Choudhury and 2 Ors. Vs the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.

Maruti Suzuki India Limited and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

All Assam Fair Price Shop Dealers Association and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Basapi Kropi Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Rabindra Biswas Vs the Assam State Election Commissioner and 3 Ors.