Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/80/2025 of Dr. Albert Vanlalliantluanga Vs State of Mizoram through the Chief Secretary and 6 Ors. on 22 September 2026
GAHC030004202025 THE GAUHATI
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC030004202025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/80/2025
Dr. Albert Vanlalliantluanga
S/o Liankhuma
R/o Chamnari, Aizawl, Mizoram
VERSUS
State of Mizoram through the Chief Secretary and 6 Ors.
Got. of Mizoram, Mizoram Secretariat, New Capital Complex (MINECO), Khatla, Aizawl, Mizoram 2:Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation Department (UDandPA) through the Secretary 3:Directorate of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation Department (UDandPA)
through the Director
4:Town and Country Planning Office
Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation Department (UD and PA)
5:Mizoram Public Service Commission through the Controller of Examinations 6:Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms through the Commissioner and Secretary 7:Sh. Andrew Lalhruai Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga Advocate for the Respondent : Mr J C Lalnunsanga for R 5
Page 1 of 2
Page No.# 2/2
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
ORDER
23.09.2026 (M.K. Kalita, J) Heard Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6, as well as Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Stephen Lalbuatsaiha, learned counsel for respondent No. 7.
2. Although this matter was heard at length by this Court, however, at the conclusion of the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted there was a technical defect in the writ petition by not bringing on record that the rules challenged in this writ petition are contrary to the provisions contained in the Mizoram Urban and Regional Development Act, 2025.
3. As such, he sought leave of this Court to allow the petitioner to withdraw the instant writ petition with liberty to file afresh, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The prayer is allowed.
5. The instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with the leave sought for, granted.
6. The earlier interim order hereby stands vacated.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…