Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/462/2026 of THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS Vs HEM CHANDRA BORAH on 14 June 2026
GAHC010288192025 2026:GAU-AS:8490 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/462/2026 1: THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA RAIL BHUWAN REFI MARG NEW DELHI- 110001.
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.
Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010288192025
2026:GAU-AS:8490
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/462/2026 1: THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA RAIL BHUWAN REFI MARG NEW DELHI- 110001. 2: THE CHAIRPERSON CUM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER RAILWAY BOARD INDIAN RAILWAYS NEW DELHI -110001. 3: THE N. F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER (CONSTRUCTION) NF RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI. 4: THE GENERAL MANAGER (CONSTRUCTION) N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI. 5: THE DIRECTOR (ESTABLISHMENT) (SPECIAL) RAILWAY BOARD INDIAN RAILWAYS NEW DELHI-110001. VERSUS HEM CHANDRA BORAH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (PLANNING) N. F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI- 11 R/O FLAT NO 2A NANIKANTA HERITAGE BISHNU RABHA PATH R G BARUWA ROAD GUWAHATI- 24. For the Applicant(s) : Mrs. R. Devi, Central Government Counsel. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.B. Phookan, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. S. Khound, Advocate for sole respondent.
Page No.# 2/2
– B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 15.06.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) In view of the order passed today in the WP(C) No.890/2026, no further order is required in the present application. Accordingly, the interlocutory application stands closed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant