Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/3342/2026 of M/S KANKARIA TEA LLP Vs STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS on 8 September 2026
GAHC010127222026 2026:GAU-AS:13169 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3342/2026 M/S KANKARIA TEA LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008, HAVING
GAHC010127222026
2026:GAU-AS:13169
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3342/2026
M/S KANKARIA TEA LLP
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008, HAVING ITS TEA ESTATE KNOWN AS SECONEE TEA ESTATE SITUATED AT
P.O. JAKHALABANDHA, DISTRICT-NAGAON, ASSAM AND REPRESENTED
BY ITS AUTHORISED PARTNER, PANKAJ KANKARIA
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
ASSAM,DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON
ASSAM
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NAGAON
ASSAM
4:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE
JAKHALABANDHA POLICE STATION
DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
5:THE ASSISTANT LABOURCOMMISSIONER
NAGAON
ASSAM
6:SECONEE TEA ESTATE WORKERS
UNION REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY
7:ASSAM CHAH MAZDOOR SANGHA NAGAON BRANCH
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND/OR SECRETARY
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NAGAON
ASSA
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. P. Agarwala, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Goswami, Govt. Advocate
BEFORE
HONOURABLE 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
Date : 09.09.2026
Ms. P. Agarwala, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that taking into account that certain talks are going on with the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, the petitioner would not like to pursue the instant proceedings. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that in the circumstance, the talks fail and the petitioner continues to be unable to operate the tea garden, the petitioner may again be permitted to approach this Court.
2. Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition stands closed on withdrawal.
3. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach this Court again, if the talks with the respondents fail.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant