Union of India and 3 Ors. v. Shri Prabin Das

Gauhati HC15 Sept 2026WA/35/2026

Download

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

GAHC020005102026 2026:GAU-NL:502-DB THE…

Case summary

From the record, as published by the registry

GAHC020005102026 2026:GAU-NL:502-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WA/35/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE, KRISH BHAWAN, NEW

Disposed 2 months after registration.

Filed as

Disposed Of2026

Union of India and 3 Ors. Vs Shri Prabin Das — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Union of India and 3 Ors. v. Shri Prabin Das

Gauhati HC15 Sept 2026WA/35/2026

Download

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

GAHC020005102026 2026:GAU-NL:502-DB THE…

Case summary

From the record, as published by the registry

Disposed 2 months after registration.

Filed as

Disposed Of2026

¶71

“ 10. The contention of the Commission also overlooks the fundamental difference between challenge to the final order forming part of the judgment and challenge to the ratio decidendi of the judgment. Broadly speaking, every judgment of superior courts has three segments, namely, (i) the facts and the point at issue; (ii) the reasons for the decision; and (iii) the final order containing the decision. The reasons for the decision or the ratio decidendi is not the final order containing the decision. In fact, in a judgment of this Court, though the ratio decidendi may point to a particular result, the decision (final order relating to relief) may be different and not a natural consequence of the ratio decidendi of the judgment. This may happen either on account of any subsequent event or the need to mould the relief to do complete justice in the matter. It is the ratio decidendi of a judgment and not the final order in the judgment, which forms a precedent. The term "judgment" and "decision" are used, rather loosely, to refer to the entire judgment or the final order or the ratio decidendi of a judgment. Rupa Ashok Hurra is of course, an authority for the proposition that a petition under Article 32 would not be maintainable to challenge or set aside or quash the final order contained in a judgment of this Court. It does not lay down a proposition that the ratio decidendi of any earlier decision cannot be examined or differed in another case. Where violation of a fundamental right of a citizen is alleged in a petition under Article 32, it cannot be dismissed, as not maintainable, merely because it seeks to distinguish or challenge the ratio decidendi of an earlier judgment, except where it is between the same parties and in respect of the same cause of action. Where a legal issue raised in a petition under Article 32 is covered by a decision of this Court, the Court may dismiss the petition following the ratio decidendi of the earlier decision. Such dismissal is not on the ground of "maintainability" but on the

Union of India and 3 Ors. v. Shri Prabin Das

Case brief

What is this about?

Case summary

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and 3 Ors. v. Shri Prabin Das

Case brief

What is this about?

Case summary

Case details

Similar cases