GAHC040002312024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

(ITANAGAR BENCH)

Case No. : WP(C)/79/2024 Nabam Bobita Techi Wife of Techi Ayum, Nonpu Village, PO and PS Doimukh, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh.

VERSUS The Union of India and 4 Ors represented by the Secretary, Ministry of petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001 2:Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Age: 0 Occupation :

Govt of India Enterprise having its registered office at Bharat Bhavan

4 and 6 Currimbhoy Road Ballard Estate Mumbai 400001 Maharashtra represented by its Managing Director

3:The Managing Dirctor Age: 0 Occupation :

Bharat petroleum Corporation Limited

12 E and F Maker Towers Cuffe Parades Post Box No.19949 Mumbai 400005 Maharashtra

4:The Project Manager Age: 0 Occupation :

State Head (Retail) North East at Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Guwahati 1st Floor Nexia Park GMCH Road Christian Basti Guwahati Kamrup Metropolitan District Assam 781005

5:The Territory Manager (Retail)

Age: 0 Occupation :

Head of Territory Office Guwahati 1st Floor Nexia Park GMCH Road Christian Basti Guwahati Kamrup Metropolitan District Assam 781005 6:Techi Ayum Age: 0 Occupation :

Son of Late Techi Barn Emchi Village PO and PS Doimukh Papumpare District Arunachal Prades Advocate for the Petitioner : Regum Nabam, 1 N Saha,A Linggi,Nending Kago Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, DSGI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

ORDER

Date : 13.05.2025 Heard Shri G. C. Taba, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that this Court, vide order dated 03.03.2025 had permitted serving of notice upon the respondent Nos.2 to 6 by dasti and thereafter, file affidavit as proof of such service.

In compliance of the aforesaid order, dasti service has been affected and in this regard, an affidavit has also been filed on 24.03.2025.

Perused the said affidavit.

Upon perusal of the same and noting that the services have been served upon the respondent, service upon the respondent Nos.2 to 6 is deemed to be complete.

Shri M. Kato, learned Dy.S.G.I. for the Union of India, has however, submitted that though he is appearing for the respondent No.1, the impugned decision is taken by the respondent No.2 and therefore, affidavit by the respondent No.1 may not be necessary.

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the matter is adjourned by 4(four) weeks to enable the respondent Nos.2 to 6 to file affidavit, if so advised.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant