Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/459/2019 of Millo Pugang Vs THE STATE OF AP and 4 Ors. on 23 August 2026
GAHC040014042019 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/459/2019 Millo Pugang Surveyor of works (Electro MEchanical) office of the chief engineer (Western Zone) Department of Hydro Power, Itanagar Mobile No.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC040014042019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : WP(C)/459/2019
Millo Pugang
Surveyor of works (Electro MEchanical) office of the chief engineer (Western Zone)
Department of Hydro Power, Itanagar
Mobile No. 9436643782
VERSUS
THE STATE OF AP and 4 Ors.
Represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of AP, Itanagar 2:THE COMMISSIONER
Age: 0
Occupation :
HYDRO POWER DEVELOPMENT
GOVT. OF AP
ITANAGAR
3:Rubu Opo
Age: 0
Occupation :
S/o Late Rubu Tana
a Resident of Village Tajang (Lempia)
PO and PS Ziro
District Lower Subansiri
Arunachal Pradesh
4:Gumto Ete
Age: 0
Occupation :
Executive Engineer (Electro Mechanical) Pangin Hydro Power Division Department of Hydro Power Development PO and PS Pangin Dist. Siang Page No.# 2/2
Arunachal Pradesh
Advocate for the Petitioner : Kamal Saxena, H K Jamoh,M Pertin Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), 1 P K Tiwari, Sr. Advocate,I Chowdhury, Sr. Advocate,Taja Garam BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 24.08.2026 Mr. H. K. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, as well as Mr. T. Garam, learned counsel for the private respondent, are present. It is noticed that the present petition pertains to a claim for promotion to the post of Superintending, which is pending since 2019. It appears that the writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, writ petition stands closed as infructuous. JUDGE Comparing Assistant