Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/2660/2026 of TAPAN BARMAN Vs MR BISWAJIT PEGU on 11 August 2026
GAHC010162572026 2026:GAU-AS:11396 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2660/2026 TAPAN BARMAN S/O MAHESWAR BARMAN VILL- TENGABARI, PO- SOLMARA, PS- BELSOR, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM PIN-781338 VERSUS MR BISWAJIT PEGU THE
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010162572026
2026:GAU-AS:11396
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2660/2026
TAPAN BARMAN
S/O MAHESWAR BARMAN VILL- TENGABARI, PO- SOLMARA, PS- BELSOR, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM PIN-781338
VERSUS
MR BISWAJIT PEGU
THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -6.
2:MR PRASANTA KUMAR BHUYAN
THE CHIEF CONTROLLER
VILLAGE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION
ASSAM
GUWAHATI-8
3:MS SUPRIYA DAS
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781335
4:MR DIGANTA BORA
APS
THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-0
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G SARMA, MS. D. DEVI,MS CHITRALEKHA DAS,MR. K R
PATGIRI
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. J K GOSWAMI, Page No.# 2/2
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
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 : 12-08-2026
Heard Mr. KR Patgiri, learned counsel for the applicant, who submits that by filing this interlocutory application, the applicant seeks impleadment of Sri Diganta Bora, APS, Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home Department as respondent No. 4 in the connected contempt petition. The learned counsel submits that since he is the present incumbent his impleadment is necessary for effective compliance of the Court’s order. Mr. JK Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that he has no objection to the prayer. In view of above, the prayer for impleadment as sought for is allowed. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant