Sailen Konwar Dutta v. The State of Assam and 4 Ors

ORDER Date : 09.02.2024

None appears for the petitioner on call. Heard Mr. D. Nath, learned senior Government Advocate appears for the respondents. It is submitted at the bar that this writ petition has become infructuous as the writ petitioner had expired in the meantime. As the writ petition was filed by the petitioner assailing the action of the respondents in withdrawing his Personal Security Protection and as during the pendency of the writ petition as it is submitted by the respondents that the writ petitioner had expired in the meantime, it is seen that no right to sue survives as the Personal Security Protection which was withdrawn only from the petitioner and no claims are made in the writ petition for such protection in respect of any other family member. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous as the petitioner is stated to have expired in the meantime.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/2 GAHC010010582012 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/6231/2012o SAILENoKONWARoDUTTAo S/OoLT.oSURENDRAoNATHoDUTTAoHOUSEoNO.o81,oMOTHERoTERESSAoROAD, OPPOSITEoBSFoCAMP,oGUWAHATI-21,oALSOoREISIDINGoAToGROUNDo FLOOR,oS-98,oSOUTHoEXTENSIONo-II,oNEWoDELHI-49. VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo4oORSo REP.oBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM,o DEPARTMENToOFoHOMEoDISPUR,oGUWAHATI-6. 2:THEoINSPECTORoGENERALoOFoPOLICE oSECURITYoSPECIALoBRANCHoASSAM oKAHILIPARA oGUWAHATI-19. 3:DEPUTYoINSPECTORoGENERALoOFoPOLICE oULUBARI oGUWAHATI-7 4:THEoSUPERINTENDENToOFoPOLICE oSPECIALoBRANCHoSECURITY oGUWAHATI oASSAM. 5:THEoDEPUTYoSUPERINTENDENToOFoPOLICE oSPECIALoBRANCHoSPECIALoBRANCH oGUWAHATI oASSAMo Page No.# 2/2 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.B BHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA