Dismissed¶22

The District Commissioner, v. Dilip Kr Borah

Gauhati HC11 Mar 2025I.A.(Civil)/462/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interlocutory application for recall of costs dismissed (Gauhati High Court, Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, 12.03.2025, I.A.(Civil)/462/2025). Cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the District Commissioner, Goalpara by order dated 08.01.2025 in WP(C)/3379/2023 for non-filing of affidavit despite direction dated 06.01.2025 was NOT recalled; affidavit was notarized only on 11.02.2025 and was not accepted by the filing Section & Registry without deposit of the cost. Keywords: cost imposition, recall of costs, affidavit filing default, Registry refusal, writ petition compliance.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer to recall the cost of Rs. 10,000/- was rejected. ¶22

The District Commissioner, Vs Dilip Kr Borah — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010125072023

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/462/2025

¶6

THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER

¶7

GOALPARA DISTRICT GOALPARA ASSAM PIN 783101

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

DILIP KR BORAH

¶10

S/O- LATE MADHAB CH. BORAH R/O- S.S ROAD TILEPARA GOALPARA PIN-783101 DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM

¶11

-----------Advocate for : MR MONJIT CHETIA Advocate for : P HAZARIKA appearing for DILIP KR BORAH

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶14

ORDER

¶15

12.03.2025

¶16

Heard Mr. M. Chetia, learned Government Advocate for the applicant/respondent.

¶17

The present I.A. is filed for modification of the order dated 08.01.2025 in the connected writ petition i.e. WP(C)/3379/2023. By the aforesaid order, this Court taking into account that on the earlier occasion, this Court made it clear that the affidavit had to be filed without fail by 06.01.2025 and there has been inaction on the part of the respondents to comply with the said direction, imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the District Commissioner, Goalpara to be deposited before the Registry of this Court at the time of filing the affidavit.

¶18

The learned Government Advocate prays that the aforesaid cost may be recalled.

¶19

On a pointed quarry whether the affidavit has been filed, the learned Government Advocate submits that though the affidavit is ready, the same is not being accepted by the filing Section & Registry for want of deposit of the cost.

¶20

The learned Government Advocate has also produced the affidavit which goes to show that it was notarized on 11.02.2025 i.e. more than one month after passing of the order dated 08.01.2025. Thus even after imposition of cost, earlier direction of this Court’s dated 06.01.2025 and for which cost was imposed still continued till 11.02.2025 (date of notarization of the affidavit) even after imposition of cost.

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to re-call the aforesaid order dated 08.01.2025 and accordingly, I.A. stands dismissed.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

Comparing Assistant

The District Commissioner, v. Dilip Kr Borah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The District Commissioner, v. Dilip Kr Borah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradip Hazarika Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Bisturam Doley Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sefali Das @ Safile Das and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Richie Borah and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 14 Ors.

Nabanita Chakrabarty and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Kalicharan Mandal Vs the State of Assam