Allowed

Michiran Begum v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Gauhati HC17 Sept 2026I.A.(Civil)/3131/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order allowing an interlocutory application to implead the Chief Electrical Inspector-cum-Advisor as a respondent in an accompanying writ petition. The applicant, seeking compensation for her husband's electrocution by APDCL authorities, argued that the Inspector was necessary because he conducts the enquiry and submits the accident report required for adjudication. The Court observed that the authority was necessary for adjudication and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

The interlocutory application for the impleadment of the Chief Electrical Inspector-cum-Advisor as a party-respondent in W.P. [C] no. 4694/2026 was allowed.

Michiran Begum Vs the State of Assam and Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010183102026

undefined

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

¶5

I.A.(Civil)/3131/2026

¶6

MICHIRAN BEGUM S/O. LATE NUR ISLAM VILLAGE- CHATLABORI P.O. BHELKAR BAZAR P.S. HAJO DIST KAMRUP ASSAM PIN 781102

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY- 06

¶9

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI DISPUR- 06

¶10

3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP AT AMINGAON DIST KAMRUP ASSAM PIN 781031

¶11

4:THE ASSAM POWER AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN ELECTRICITY BOARD BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GHY-08

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

5:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HRA APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN GHY-01 6:THE SUB- DIVISIONAL ENGINEER HAJO ELECTRICAL SUB- DIVISION APDCL DIST KAMRUP ASAM PIN 781102 7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER HAJO REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. P.S. HAJO DIST KAMRUP ASSAM PIN 781102

¶14

8:THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR -CUM ADVISOR GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM INSPECTORATE OF ELECTRICITY 1ST FLOOR WEST END BLOCK HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 -----------Advocate for : MR. W RAHMAN Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER

¶16

18.09.2026

¶17

Heard Mr. W. Rahman, learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. J. Handique, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the opposite party nos. 1, 3 & 7; and Mr. B. Das, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL for the opposite party nos. 4, 5 & 6.

¶18

The instant interlocutory application has been filed by the applicant seeking impleadment of the following authority :-

¶19

Chief Electrical Inspector –cum- Advisor

¶20

Government of Assam, Inspectorate of Electricity,

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

1st Floor, West End Block, Housefed Complex,

¶23

Dispur, Guwahati – 06

¶24

as party-respondent in the accompanying writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4694/2026.

¶25

The applicant as the writ petitioner has preferred the accompanying writ petition, W.P. [C] no. 4694/2026 seeking compensation from the respondent authorities in the APDCL on the ground that the husband of the petitioner died due to electrocution on 21.07.2024 allegedly due to fault/negligence on the part of the respondent APDCL authorities.

¶26

It is averred in the application that due to inadvertence, the afore-mentioned authority has not been impleaded as party-respondent in the accompanying writ petition. It is stated that the presence of the proposed authority as a party-respondent will be necessary as it is the authority which causes the enquiry into the alleged incident of electrocution and submits an electrical accident enquiry report, which is necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the issues involved in the writ petition.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that they have no objection to the prayer for impleadment.

¶28

Having gone through the statements and averments made in this interlocutory application and the reason cited for impleadment of the afore-mentioned authority as partyrespondent, this Court is of the considered view that the afore-mentioned proposed authority is a necessary party for adjudication of the issues involved in the accompanying writ petition. The interlocutory application is allowed accordingly.

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Michiran Begum v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Michiran Begum v. the State of Assam and 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