Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4426/2026 of SRI ROGER RAMNEIMAWI Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. on 2 September 2026
GAHC010173632026 2026:GAU- AS:12777-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4426/2026 SRI ROGER RAMNEIMAWI S/O LATE LALMUUNKUNG R/O PHC ROAD SAIKOT, DISTRICT CHURACHANDPUR, MANIPUR, PIN 795117 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.
GAHC010173632026
2026:GAU-
AS:12777-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4426/2026
SRI ROGER RAMNEIMAWI
S/O LATE LALMUUNKUNG
R/O PHC ROAD SAIKOT, DISTRICT CHURACHANDPUR, MANIPUR, PIN
795117
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD OF
INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS4TH FLOOR HUDCO VISHALA
BUILDINGBHIKAJI CAMA PLACE R K PURAM, NEW DELHI 110001
2:THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN
MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
NEW DELHI
3:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL) MUMBAI
NEW CUSTOM HOUSE
BALLARD ESTATE
MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA
PIN 400001
4:THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND CUSTOMS
GUWAHATI ZONE
GST BHAWAN 5TH FLOOR KEDAR ROAD
GUWAHATI DISTRICT KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
PIN 78100
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MITRA, MR S.MITRA,A R ANSARI,MR A K BORO
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, GST
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
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 : 03/09/2026 (Michael Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Mr. S. Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, GST, appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner's prayer is that till a decision is taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench, in OA No. 246/2026 against the order dated 22/07/2026, repatriating the petitioner back to his parent zone, i.e. Mumbai Customs Zone-I and the challenge to the relieving order dated 22/07/2026, by which he has been released from the CGST post in Imphal, the impugned orders dated 22/07/2026 should be suspended.
3. We have noticed that the repatriation order and relieving order, both dated 22/07/2026, have been made in pursuance to the order dated 25/05/2022 issued by the respondents, whereby the petitioner’s posting in Imphal has been deemed to be on “loan posting” and as such, he has been repatriated to his parent zone pursuant to the said letter dated 25/05/2022.
4. This letter dated 25/05/2022 had been put to challenge by the petitioner and two others in OA no. 040/00121/2022 in the CAT, Guwahati Bench. However, OA no. 040//00121/2022 was dismissed vide order dated 30/05/2022.
5. The order dated 30/05/2022 passed by CAT Guwahati Bench in OA
no. 040/00121/2022 had been put to challenge by the petitioner and two others in WP(C) no. 3871/2026, which was dismissed on 27/07/2026, with the following findings and decisions, in para 15 and 16, which are as follows:- “15. Therefore, the Court is unable to find any infirmity with the impugned order dated 15.07.2025, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in O.A. no. 042/00176/2022.
16. It is clarified that the order dated 18.07.2025, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in O.A. No. 0042/00049/2019, is not a matter of challenge in this writ petition, therefore, nothing contained in this order will have any effect on the said order.”
6. As can be seen from the above, when the challenge to the letter dated 25/05/2022 has ended, there cannot be any challenge to any consequential order made on the basis of the said letter dated 25/05/2022, such as, the present orders dated 22/07/2026. Accordingly, we do not find any ground to interfere with the orders dated 22/07/2026. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant