Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/5/2026 of M/s Lokam Yasi Carriage and Construction Associates Vs The State of AP and 5 Ors on 20 July 2026
GAHC040000082026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/5/2026 M/s Lokam Yasi Carriage and Construction Associates office address 6 Mile, NH 415 Road, Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh represented by
GAHC040000082026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5/2026
M/s Lokam Yasi Carriage and Construction Associates office address 6 Mile, NH 415 Road, Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh represented by its Proprietor Shri Lokam Tassar,
VERSUS
The State of AP and 5 Ors
represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 791111
2:The Secretary
Age: 0
Occupation :
Rural Works Department
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
Itanagar 791111
3:The Superintending Engineer
Age: 0
Occupation :
Rural Works Circle
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
Itanagar 791111
4:The Chief Engineer
Age: 0
Occupation :
PMGSY
ARRDA RWD
Itanagar
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh 791111
5:The Executive Engineer
Age: 0
Occupation :
Rural Works Division
Laaying Yangte
Kurung Kumey District
Arunachal Pradesh.
6:Er Sangha Taage
Age: 0
Occupation :
Junior Engineer
RWD
Laaying Yangte Division
Kurung Kumey District
Arunachal Pradesh
Advocate for the Petitioner : Sumit Chhetri, Tshering Yangzom Bhutia,Keten Tabang,Habung Aape,Tai Dool,Bamang Tatung,Risso Aking,Migo Laye Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), SC (RWD),Gimi Tarak 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 : 21.07.2026 None appears for the petitioner on call. However, Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel, RWD, and Ms. P. Pangu, learned State Counsel, for the respondents, are present. It is also noticed that no steps have been taken by the petitioner for service of notice upon the private respondent No. 6.
Considering above, it appears that the petitioner is no longer interested to pursue this matter. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant