Disposed¶31

Biswa Dev Goswami v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Sept 2025Review.Pet./5/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition; recall of order dated 07.09.2023; restoration of writ petition WP(C) No. 520/2012 to original file; Gauhati High Court; Soumitra Saikia J.; Biswa Dev Goswami; petitioner no.2; communication gap; instructions to advocate on record; Nirmal Konwar WP(C) no.532/2012; Akhtar Ali; Pulin Medhi WP(C) No.521/2012; promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer; PWD Assam; R Dhar Standing Counsel; KN Choudhury Senior Counsel; interim orders vacated; disposal of review petition 15.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Recall/modification of the order dated 07.09.2023 limited to WP(C) No. 520/2012; that writ petition restored to its original file for hearing restricted to the claims of its petitioner no.2, Shri Biswa Dev Goswami; Registrar (Judicial) to be notified of the order. ¶31

Biswa Dev Goswami Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 07.09.2023 closing the writ petitions ought to be recalled in respect of petitioner no.2 of WP(C) no.520/2012, Shri Biswa Dev Goswami, whose claims in the writ petition remained alive.

¶24

Court's answer

The Court considered it appropriate to recall the order dated 07.09.2023 only in respect of WP(C) No. 520/2012, restoring the said writ petition to its original file to be listed for hearing.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

In the restored WP(C) No. 520/2012, only the claims made in respect of writ petitioner No. 2, Shri Biswa Dev Goswami, shall be considered at the time of hearing.

¶26

Key takeaways

The order dated 07.09.2023 passed in WP(C) no. 520/2012 stands modified to the extent indicated and shall now be read along with the order passed in Review Petition no.5 of 2025.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

GAUHATI HIGH COURT (Soumitra Saikia, J.) — Review.Pet./5/2025, order dated 15.09.2025: By a common order dated 07.09.2023, WP(C) no.532/2012, WP(C) no.520/2012 and WP(C) No.521/2012 were disposed of, closed and their interim orders vacated after counsel recorded that the writ petitioners were no longer interested in pursuing the matters. Shri Biswa Dev Goswami, petitioner no.2 in WP(C) no.520/2012, filed this review petition asserting that, owing to a communication gap and instructions originating primarily from another petitioner (Shri Nirmal Konwar), those submissions did not reflect his position; he remained in service and unconsidered for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, so his claims were still alive. The learned Standing Counsel, PWD raised no objection. The Court recalled the 07.09.2023 order solely in respect of WP(C) No. 520/2012, restored it to its original file for hearing, confined consideration at hearing to the claims of petitioner no.2, and held the earlier order modified to that extent and to be read with the present order; the review petition stood disposed of.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010008882025

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : Review.Pet./5/2025

¶6

BISWA DEV GOSWAMI

¶7

SON OF LATE KUMUD GOSWAMI VILL- AND P.O. MONIARY TINIALI, MIRZA, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM,PIN- 781125.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARTY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶11

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER ROADS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHANAMARI GUWAHATI-3.

¶12

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ROADS

¶13

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N DEKA, MR. S BANIKYA,MR. M GOGOI

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD,

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

15.09.2025

¶20

Heard Mr. KN Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N Deka, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Mr. R Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD.

¶21

This review petition is directed against the order dated 07.09.2023 passed in WP(C) no.532/2012, WP(C) no.520/2012 and WP(C) No.521/2012. All these 3 (three) writ petitions came to be disposed of by the common order dated 07.09.2023 recording the submissions of the learned counsel on record for the writ petitioners that the writ petitioners are no longer interested in pursuing the matters. These writ petitions were thereafter closed and the interim orders were vacated.

¶22

Subsequently, this review petition has been filed by one Shri Biswa Dev Goswami, who was the petitioner no.2 in WP(C) no.520/2012. It is submitted that because of communication gap such submissions came to be made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties on record were infact in respect of Shri Nirmal Konwar, the petitioner in WP(C) no.532/2012, Shri Akhtar Ali petitioner no.1 in WP(C) no.520/2012 who had in the meantime being promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, and Shri Pulin Medhi, the writ petitioner in WP(C) no.521/2012, who had superannuated in the meantime. However, as regards Shri Biswa Dev Goswami, who is the petitioner no.2 in WP(C) No.520/2012 and the present Review Petitioner, his claims made in this writ petition are still alive

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

as he is still in service and his case has not been considered for promotion to the next higher post i.e. the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner that since the instructions to the advocate on record was forthcoming primarily from one of the writ petitioners, namely, Shri Nirmal Konwar and the counsel on record for the writ petitioners was instructed that the writ petitioners were not interested in pursuing the writ petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioners on such instructions submitted before the Court and on the basis of which the order dated 07.09.2023 came to be passed closing of all the writ petitions. Subsequently, the learned counsel was informed that the present review petitioner, namely, Shri Biswa Dev Goswami had not given up his challenge made in his writ petition, being WP(C)No.520/2012 and therefore, the order dated 07.09.2023 may be recalled in respect of Shri Biswa Dev Goswami, the writ petitioner no.2 in WP(C) no.520/2012.

¶25

Mr. R Dhar, learned Standing Counsel for the PWD does not object to the prayer made.

¶26

Considering the submissions made before the Court and upon perusal of the averments in the review petition, this Court considers it appropriate to recall the order dated 07.09.2023, but only in respect of WP(C) No. 520/2012. The said writ petition shall be restored to its original file and shall now be listed for hearing before the Court. It is made clear that, in the said writ petition, only the claims made in respect of writ petitioner No. 2, Shri Biswa Dev Goswami, shall be considered at the time of hearing.

¶27

The order dated 07.09.2023 passed in WP(C) no. 520/2012 therefore stands modified to the extent indicate above. The order dated 07.09.2023 passed in WP(C) no.520/2012 shall now be read along with the order passed today in

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

Review Petition no.5 of 2025.

¶30