Gauhati High Court
Review.Pet./44/2026 of BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL AND ANR Vs DHANASHREE KALITA on 13 May 2026
GAHC010033762026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./44/2026 BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL AND ANR KOKRAJHAR, P.O.- KOKRAJHAR, DIST- KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783370, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010033762026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./44/2026
BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL AND ANR
KOKRAJHAR, P.O.- KOKRAJHAR, DIST- KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783370, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
2: SECRETARY
BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
KOKRAJHA
VERSUS
DHANASHREE KALITA
D/O JOY CHARAN KALITA, R/O VILL- BARJAR, P.O.- BARAMA, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781346
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. B BHUYAN, MR. A KHOUND,MS. N CHOUDHURY,MR. A K
BHUYAN
Advocate for the Respondent : MR D MAHANTA, MR T GOGOI
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
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 : 14-05-2026 Heard Mr. N.R. Sarmah, learned counsel for the review petitioner, who submits that while the review petitioner does not have any quarrel with the decision of this Page No.# 2/2 Court in relation to the order dated 22.01.2025, passed in WP(C) 3058/2024, a clarification may be made to the effect that the observation made in the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 would only be applicable to the writ petitioner in WP(C) 3058/2024 and the same should not be seen as a precedent for similar cases. Mr. D. Mahanta, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that no grounds for review has been made out by the review petitioner, besides the present petition having been filed without seeking condonation of delay of 389 days in filing the review petition. On considering the prayer made by the review petitioner’s counsel, this Court is unable to find any grounds to review the impugned order dated 22.01.2025, passed in WP(C) 3058/2024. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant