Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/16/2026 of M/s Kshitij Enterprises Vs Power Grid Corporation of India and Anr on 13 August 2026
GAHC040000832026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/16/2026 M/s Kshitij Enterprises through its proprietor Mrs Bindheswari Singh, Wife of Parikshit Singh, resident of SA-6/176-R-B, Shankarpuram Colony, Aktha,
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC040000832026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : WP(C)/16/2026
M/s Kshitij Enterprises
through its proprietor Mrs Bindheswari Singh, Wife of Parikshit Singh, resident of SA-6/176-R-B, Shankarpuram Colony, Aktha, Benipur Sarnath, Varnasi 221007
VERSUS
Power Grid Corporation of India and Anr
through its Chairman and Managing Director, registered office address B-9 Qutub Institutional Area, Katwari Sarai, New Delhi 110016
2:Chief General Manager
Age: 0
Occupation :
C and M Department
Power Grid Corporation of India CSTD-AP Office Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Binter Picha, Advocate for the Respondent : ,
Page No.# 2/2
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
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
14.08.2026 Heard Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel for the petitioner. By order dated 24.02.2026, the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to take steps for service of notice upon the respondents. However, no steps have been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. At this stage, Mr. Picha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite repeated communication made by him, no further instructions have been received from the petitioner. He further submits that it appears that the petitioner is no longer interested to pursue the matter. Therefore, he submits that he is no longer pressing the matter. In view of the above, this writ petition stands dismissed on not being pressed.
JUDGE
Sabnam Mepo (SPA)