THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 07 Dec 2022
- Bench
- DEVASHIS BARUAH
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/812/2019 CHAMPAK KALITA S/O- LATE RAMESH ATHPURIA, R/O- VILL- MILANPUR, MANGALDOI, P.S- MANGALDOI, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN- 784125 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06 2:THE COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06 3:THE DIRECTOR INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06 4:THE DISTRICT INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER DARRANG DISTRICT MANGALDOI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R C SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM Page No.# 2/2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Date : 07/12/2022 ORDER Heard Mr. R.C. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. T.C.Chutia, the learned senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/Respondents. Mr. R. C. Saikia, the learned counsel has submitted that although in the instant petition, the petitioner has only challenged the advertisement on the ground that there is no criteria being evolved that there should be marks allotted on account of experience but later on upon getting certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it revealed that the petitioner had been illegally deprived of from being selected, for which he submits that he would like to withdraw the instant petition and file a fresh petition challenging the advertisement as well the selection by which the petitioner has been illegally deprived of. Taking into account the said submission made by Mr. Saikia, the instant petition stands dismissed on withdrawal. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a writ petition challenging the selection along with what has been challenged in the instant proceedings. The said liberty is subject to the law being permitting the petitioner to do so. Mr. T.C. Chutia, the learned Senior Government Advocate has produced the records before this Court. The records are returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Right to Information Act, 2005.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 07 Dec 2022. The bench was DEVASHIS BARUAH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.