Allowed¶34

Sri Bishal Jyoti Neog v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC19 Jul 2026MC/45/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court order dated 20.07.2026 by Justice Kaushik Goswami in MC/45/2026 (neutral citation 2026:GAU-AS:9873), allowing the application of Sri Bishal Jyoti Neog for restoration of WP(C) No. 1125/2026 against the State of Assam, Assam Agricultural University and others. The writ petition had been dismissed for default on 08.06.2026 for non-prosecution because counsel M. K. Sharma and H. Das were absent owing to illness of family members; the respondent (represented by S. Sharma) did not oppose restoration. Keywords: restoration application, dismissed for default, non-prosecution, writ petition, medical emergency, cause-list.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of WP(C) No. 1125/2026 to its original file and number. ¶34

Sri Bishal Jyoti Neog Vs the State of Assam — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010134092026

2026:GAU-AS:9873

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

¶5

Case No. : MC/45/2026

¶6

SRI BISHAL JYOTI NEOG

¶7

SON OF HORENDRA NATH NEOG, RESIDENT OF KHONGIA GAON, PO DAHOTIA PS PULIBOR DISTRICT JORHAT ASSAM PIN 785617

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF AGRICULTURE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DISPUR, GUWAHATI781006.

¶10

2:THE ASSAM AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY REP. BY THE REGISTRAR BARBHETA JORHAT-785013 DIST. JORHAT ASSAM. 3:THE REGISTRAR ASSAM AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY BARBHETA JORHAT-785013 DIST. JORHAT ASSAM.

¶11

4:PRASENJIT BARMAN C/O. DEBEN BARMAN KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-781022 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM.

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

5:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN ASSAM AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY BARBHETA JORHAT-785013 DIST. JORHAT ASSAM

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K SHARMA, MR H DAS,MR. R MEDHI

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AAU,

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 20.07.2026

¶20

Heard Mr. M. K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶21

2. By way of the present application, the applicant has prayed for restoration of the original writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No. 1125/2026 which was dismissed for default by order dated 08.06.2026 passed by this Court.

¶22

3. It appears that on 08.06.2026 when the connected writ petition was taken up for consideration, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite the names of the learned counsel having been reflected in the cause-list. Consequently, the writ petition came to be dismissed for nonprosecution. It further appears that apart from Mr. M. K. Sharma, learned counsel, Mr. H. Das, is also the engaged counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

4. By filing the present application, the petitioner has explained the circumstances leading to non-appearance on 08.06.2026 as follows: -

¶24

“ 4. That, the petitioner begs to state that the aforesaid Writ Petition had been conducting by said Ld. Counsel Mr. M.K. Sharma being

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

he was authorised to do so. However, said Ld. Counsel's junior colleague Mr. H. Das was also with him.

¶27

Be it stated herein that the mother of the Ld. Counsel Mr. M.K. Sharma was suffering from illness and on the date of listing of the aforesaid case i.e. 08-06-2026 the health condition of his mother was not good one and therefore, the Ld. Counsel Mr. M.K. Sharma went to his native place at Rangia in the early morning and skipped to inform and intimate his junior colleague and/or other colleague on such mental state to appear in the said case and pray for adjournment. Moreover, the other engaged Counsel Mr. H. Das whose name was also in the case was also on leave on the said date listing of the aforesaid case due to his father's illness as the said Ld. Counsel's father was also suffering from severe illness for last several days. Therefore, due to the aforesaid medical urgency of their family members, both the said Ld. Counsel could not able to present before this Hon'ble Court and as such, for non-prosecution, the said writ petition has been dismissed for default vide order dated 08-06-2026.

¶28

5. That, the petitioner begs to state that the fact of dismissal of the instant writ petition has come to knowledge of the said Ld. Counsel on 10-06-2026 and immediately thereafter, the petitioner was intimated about the said order of this Hon'ble court and also have given necessary instruction for filing of instant application and accordingly this petition has been filed.”

¶29

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perused the materials available on record, it appears that due to medical emergency in the family of both the learned counsels for the petitioner on the date on which the matter was called before this Court, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on call.

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

6. The prayer for restoration is not opposed by Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶32

7. Considering the explanation furnished and in the interest of justice, the prayer for restoration deserves to be allowed.

¶33

8. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.

¶34

9. Let WP(C) No. 1125/2026 be restored to its original file and number.

¶35

JUDGE