Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/3069/2026 of RYAN THOMAS BOWEN Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS on 30 August 2026
GAHC010116532026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3069/2026 RYAN THOMAS BOWEN S/O MR. WAYNE BOWEN, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF 8 BROADFORD STREET, SPRING MOUNTAINS 4300, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT LOKHRA ROAD, SONAIGULI, OPP.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010116532026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3069/2026
RYAN THOMAS BOWEN
S/O MR. WAYNE BOWEN, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF 8 BROADFORD
STREET, SPRING MOUNTAINS 4300, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT LOKHRA
ROAD, SONAIGULI, OPP. SURVEY OFFICE, SAWKUCHI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781040
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001
2:THE HOME SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFIARS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NORTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI- 110001
3:FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICE
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
DHARAPUR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 78101
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MR. S MITRA,MR A K BORO,MR
S.MITRA,A R ANSARI
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., Page No.# 2/2
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
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 : 31-08-2026 Mr. S. Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner, an Australian national, has left the country on 09.07.2026, the subject-matter of the writ petition has become infructuous. Mr. U. Goswami, learned Central Government Counsel for all the respondents is present. In view of the above submission made by Mr. Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant