Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/5485/2026 of RANU TEA ESTATE AND ANR Vs STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS on 6 October 2026
GAHC010218112026 2026:GAU-AS:15120 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5485/2026 RANU TEA ESTATE AND ANR MILON NAGAR, DIBRUGARH, P.O. RATANPUR, DIBRUGARH-786003. 2: GYASUDDIN AHMED MANAGING PARTNER RANU TEA ESTATE MILON NAGAR
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010218112026
2026:GAU-AS:15120
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5485/2026
RANU TEA ESTATE AND ANR
MILON NAGAR, DIBRUGARH, P.O. RATANPUR, DIBRUGARH-786003.
2: GYASUDDIN AHMED
MANAGING PARTNER
RANU TEA ESTATE
MILON NAGAR
P.O. RATANPUR
DIBRUGARH-786003
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, LABOUR WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR-781006.
2:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
DIBRUGARH
P.O. DIBRUGARH.
3:OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
DIBRUGARH REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER.
4:MR NIZAMUDDIN AHMED
S/O LATE ANWARUDDIN AHMED
RESIDENT OF EAST MILON NAGAR
NEAR DOORDARSAN KENDRA
. RATANPUR DIBRUGARH
PIN 786003.
5:MRS SHAHANA DOMBECK
D/O LATE ANWARUDDIN AHMED
RESIDENT OF 6318
PIEDMOUNT RD
Page No.# 2/2
MADISON
WI-53711
USA. REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY MR. NIZAMUDDIN AHMED
MILON NAGAR
P.O. RATANPUR
DIBRUGARH-786003
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. S Dutta Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. R Talukdar Govt. Advocate, Assam B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
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
07.10.2026 Heard Mr. S Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, who submits that the grievance of the Petitioners in respect to the communication dated 11.09.2026 was the observations made in the said communication that the Petitioners have to pay 50% of the payment.
2. He, however, submits that subsequently upon the requests made in the communication dated 11.09.2026, the share of the Petitioners was reduced to 35%. Under such circumstances, the Petitioners do not have any grievances, for which, the Petitioners would not like to further pursue the present writ petition and seeks to withdraw the same.
3. Taking into account the above, the writ petition stands closed on withdrawal. JUDGE Comparing Assistant