GAHC010012782015

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/2567/2015

SMTI. JINU DAS

W/O LT. GAUTAM DAS R/O VILL- PATIA CHUBURI, DEKAR GAON, P.S.

TEZPUR, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM.

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS

REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENSE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW

DELHI- 110001.

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

HEAD QUARTER

ASSAM RIFLES LAITUMKHRAH

SHILLONG

MEGHALAYA

PIN - 793011.

3:THE COMMANDANT

12TH ASSAM RIFLES

C/O 99 APO.

4:THE STATE OF ASSAM

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

HOME DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-16.

5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

SONITPUR P.O. TEZPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.U DUTTA, MR.D HAZARIKA,MR.S C BISWAS,MS.K L R YANTHAN,MR. S BISWAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. K GOGOI,,,ASSTT.S.G.I., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

ORDER

06.11.2025 Heard Ms. U. Nanda, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri K. Gogoi, learned CGC. The State is represented by Shri P. Kakati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri B. Goswami, learned AAG.

The writ petition was instituted in the year 2015 with a claim for compensation regarding the death of the husband of the petitioner which had taken place due to certain firing by the Assam Rifles Jawan on 15.02.2015. It is also the case projected that the petitioner was injured on her leg in such firing and had to undergo treatment in the Gauhati Medical College Hospital, Guwahati.

While notice was issued on 08.05.2015, this Court had made an observation that pendency of the writ petition shall not be a bar for examining the case of the petitioner regarding the compensation and to pass appropriate orders.

Ms. Nanda, the learned counsel has informed this Court that during the pendency of this writ petition, compensation of an amount of Rs. 12,00,000/-

(Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) has been paid.

The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the matter has been examined and compensation being paid, there is no requirement to continue any further with the writ petition.

In view of the aforesaid development including the fact disclosed by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding payment of compensation, this Court is of the opinion that there is no further requirement to continue with this writ petition.

The writ petition accordingly stands closed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant