Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/5974/2023 of DR. MRIGEN SAIKIA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. on 5 February 2026
GAHC010224462023 2026:GAU-AS:1727 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5974/2023 DR. MRIGEN SAIKIA S/O- LATE MONI RAM SAIKIA, R/O- BOGORITAL, BOTAHGULI, P.O. PANJABARI, P.S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN- 781037. VERSUS THE
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010224462023
2026:GAU-AS:1727
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5974/2023
DR. MRIGEN SAIKIA
S/O- LATE MONI RAM SAIKIA, R/O- BOGORITAL, BOTAHGULI, P.O.
PANJABARI, P.S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN- 781037.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY
DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN- 781006.
2:THE DIRECTOR
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY ETC. DEPARTMENT
GUWAHATI-03
KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781003.
3:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
MAIDAMGAON
GUWAHATI-781029.
4:THE TREASURY OFFICER
KAMRUP TREASURY
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : xxxx,
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, A.H and V. DEPT., SC, FINANCE,SC, AG
Page No.# 2/2
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
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
06.02.2026 Ms R Kataky, learned counsel appears on behalf of Mr M M Kataky, learned Standing Counsel, AH & V Department. Mr M Bhatta, learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Accountant General.
2. Office Note dated 22.01.2026 reflects that the note of the Process Server, who had gone to serve the notice as directed by this Court, on the petitioner, has reported that the petitioner is no more and that no one agreed to sign the notice as a witness
3. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner since the counsel for the petitioner, on earlier occasion, submitted before this Court that the brief had been withdrawn by the petitioner from the counsel.
4. In view of the circumstances, this writ petition is closed with the observation that in the event the legal heirs of the petitioners intend to re-agitate the issues raised in this writ petition, they would be at liberty to file appropriate application for revival of the writ petition.
5. Writ petition is closed on the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant