Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2302/2021 of M/S GAYAN STEEL FABRICATION AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS on 29 April 2026
GAHC010060102021 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2302/2021 M/S GAYAN STEEL FABRICATION AND ANR PROPRIETOR SRI NITU GAYAN S/O LATE BANAMALI GAYAN VILLAGE MURHANI, PO CHALCHALI PURANIGUDAM, PS SAMAGURI, DIST NAGAON, ASSAM
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010060102021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2302/2021
M/S GAYAN STEEL FABRICATION AND ANR
PROPRIETOR SRI NITU GAYAN
S/O LATE BANAMALI GAYAN
VILLAGE MURHANI, PO CHALCHALI PURANIGUDAM, PS SAMAGURI, DIST NAGAON, ASSAM 782141
2: SRI NITUL GAYAN
VILLAGE MURHANI
PO CHALCHALI PURANIGUDAM
PS SAMAGURI
DIST NAGAON
ASSAM 78214
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE,ASSAM UDYOG BHAWAN, BAMUNIMAIDAM, GUWAHATI
781021
2:THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
ASSAM
UDYOG BHAWAN
BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI 21
3:THE GENERAL MANAGER
DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CENTRE
NAGAON
ASSAM
78200
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. M H CHOUDHURY, MS. P CHAKRABORTY,B B
Page No.# 2/2
KAKATI,MR I S MAZUMDAR,MRS. L N CHOUDHURY,MR. V ACHUMI,MR P R SARMA,MR
MONZUR K CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
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 : 30.04.2026 None appears for the petitioners on call. Mr. N. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Industries and Commerce Department is present. It appears that on the last 3 (three) occasions, i.e., 17.06.2025, 15.07.2025 and 27.04.2026 as well, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners on call. In fact, the matter was listed today in the order column with the remark “For dismissal” reflecting the name of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite the same, there has been no representation. Considering consecutive non-representation on behalf of the review petitioners, the review petition stands dismissed for non- prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant