Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4741/2023 of GYANI MIZAR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS on 12 July 2026
GAHC010180192023 2026:GAU-AS:1033 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4741/2023 GYANI MIZAR WIFE OF LATE PRAHALAD MIZAR, VILL- MOWSSALADIANG, P.O.- UMPANAI, P.S.- BAITHALANGSU, DIST.- WEST KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN- 782140.
GAHC010180192023
2026:GAU-AS:1033
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4741/2023
GYANI MIZAR
WIFE OF LATE PRAHALAD MIZAR,
VILL- MOWSSALADIANG,
P.O.- UMPANAI,
P.S.- BAITHALANGSU,
DIST.- WEST KARBI ANGLONG,
ASSAM, PIN- 782140.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE (RELIEF AND REHAB.) AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781006.
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN- 782410.
6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
KARBI DONKAMUKAM REVENUE CIRCLE
DIST.- WEST KARBI ANGLONG (ASSAM)
PIN- 782485.
7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE
BASISTHA POLICE STATION
DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781029
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. F. N. U. Mollah, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Roy, Government Advocate : Ms. G. Hazarika, Standing Counsel
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 : 13.07.2026
Heard Mr. A. F. N. U. Mollah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6 & 7. I have also heard Ms. G. Hazarika, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and Mr. A. Chaliha, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.3.
2. This is an application filed by the Petitioner claiming ex- gratia payment on the basis of the notification dated 15.11.2014 on account of a road accident which led to the death of her husband.
3. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in a judgment and order dated 21.06.2024 rendered in WP(C) No.2700/2023 (Monisa Khatun @ Monisha Khatun Vs. State of Assam and 5 Others), considered the question whether the Petitioner therein would be entitled for ex-gratia amount as per the notification dated 15.11.2014 when just and fair compensation for accident involving motor vehicle accident would otherwise can be claimed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
4. The learned Coordinate Bench had proceeded to observe that the relief provided by the notification dated 15.11.2014 could not embrace all persons suffering from any accident except hit and run cases where the offending vehicle remain unidentified in the Final Form after police investigation. The principle which is discernible from the said decision is that other than the hit and run cases, the person who met with the road traffic accident wherein the offending vehicle has been identified would not be entitled to any ex-gratia relief as other statutory remedies are available.
5. Taking into account the said aspect, in the instant case, the vehicle in question which led to the accident was a dumper bearing Registration No.AS-01-JC/6625. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any other good ground to defer with the law laid down by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Monisa Khatun (supra) and accordingly does not find the present writ petition to be a fit case.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant