- Court
- High Court of Gauhati
- Decided
- 15 September 2024
- Bench
- Michael Zothankhuma
- Case no.
- WP(C) 5421/2016
Judgment
ORDER Date : 16.09.2024
No one appears on behalf of the petitioners on call. Ms. U. Das, learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 and Ms. S. Konwar, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5.
¶2This writ petition has been filed for a direction to be issued to the respondent Nos. 11 & 12, not to disturb the functioning and the activities of the District Special Residential School for handicapped children, Darrang.
¶3The petitioner's case is that thought it had applied for provincialization of the school, the school has not been provincialized till date.
¶4The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent Nos. 11 & 12, i.e., Officer-in-Charge, Dhula Police Station, Darrang and Dhula Regional Physically Handicapped Development Association, represented by the President -cum-Secretary, Hilapara, Dhula, Darrang, had suddenly appeared in the petitioners school on 26.08.2016 and 27.08.2016 and had threatened the petitioners and the children therein to shift the school. The respondent Nos. 11 & 12 came again on 03.09.2016 threatened the petitioners and its students.
¶5The affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 12 is to the effect that the writ petitioner No. 2 was removed from the post of Headmaster, on the basis of resolution No. 3 passed by the General Meeting held on 27.08.2016 convened by the Secretary of the petitioners school. Further, on the basis of an Page No.# 4/4 FIR filed by the respondent No. 12 on 26.04.2016 before the O/C, Dhula P.S., registered as Dhula P.S. Case No.190/2016 under Sections 353/294/409/506 of the IPC, the petitioner No. 2 was arrested.
¶6On perusing the averments made in the writ petition, there is no document to show that the petitioners were ever threatened by the respondent Nos. 11 &
¶12The allegations made by the petitioners against the respondents appear to be vague. However, as no one appears for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are not interested in pursuing the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Case details
Parties and counsel
PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010173452016 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/5421/2016o DISTRICToSPECIALoRESIDENTIALoSCHOOLoandoANR.o FORoHANDICAPPEDoCHILDREN,oDARRANG,oREP.oBYoTHEoHEADMASTER- CUM-SECRETARYoOFoTHEoSCHOOL,oP.O.oandoP.S.oDHULA,oDIST.oDARRANG,o ASSAM. 2:oABDULoMANNANoCHOUDHURY oHEADMASTERoCUMoSECRETARY oS/O.oLT.oIDRISHoALI oDIST.oSPL.oRESIDENTIALoSCHOOLoFORoHANDICAPPEDoCHILDREN oHIRAPARA oP.O.oandoP.S.oDHULA oDIST.oDARRANG oASSAMo VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo11oORSo REP.oBYoTHEoCOMM.oandoSECY.oTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM,oEDUCATIONo ELEMENTARYoDEPTT.,oDISPUR,oGHY.-06. 2:THEoCOMMISSIONERoandoSECY. oHOMEoDEPTT. oDISPURoGHY.-06. 3:THEoDIRECTOR oELEMENTARYoEDUCATION oASSAMoKAHILIPARA oGHY.-781019. 4:THEoDIST.oELEMENTARYoEDU.oOFFICER oDARRANG oMANGALDOI oASSAM. Page No.# 2/4 5:THE DY. INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS MANGALDOI ASSAM. 6:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT. DISPUR GHY.-06. 7:THE DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT. ASSAM UZANBAZAR GHY.-01. 8:THE DIST. SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER DARRANG ASSAM. 9:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIST. DARRANG MANGALDOI ASSAM. 10:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE DIST. DARRANG MANGALDOI ASSAM. 11:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE DHULA POLICE STATION DIST. DARRANG ASSAM. 12:DHULA REGIONAL PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED DEV. ASSOCIATION REP. BY THE PRESIDENT CUM SECRETARY VILL. HIRAPARA P.O. and P.S. DHULA DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN-784146 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.B DEVI, MS.K D SARMAH,MR.R SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : MR.C GOSWAMI R- 12, GA, ASSAM,MR.N CHAKRABORTY(R- 12),SC, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION,SC, SOCIAL WELFARE Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
Source: High Court of Gauhati, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.