GAHC010039682025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/1141/2025

ALOK KUMAR NATH AND ANR.

S/O- LATE ATUL CHANDRA NATH, R/O- EAST TANGBARI, PO RATABARI, PS

RATABARI, DIST-0 SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN- 788735

2: BIJAY SUKLA BAIDYA

S/O- LATE NIRANJAN SUKLABAIDYA

R/O- PALADAHAR P.O.- BAZARGHAT

P.S.- RATABARI

DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI (ASSAM)

PIN- 788733

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.

OF ASSAM, HOME (A) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

ASSAM

ULUBARI

GUWAHATI- 07.

3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL DEFENCE AND COMMANDANT

GENERAL OF HOME GUARDS

ASSAM

BELTOLA

GUWAHATI- 781028.

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

SRIBHUMI

ASSAM. PIN- 788710.

5:THE RESERVE OFFICER

POLICE RESERVE JUNTILA SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN- 788710 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR J ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

ORDER

23.10.2025 Heard Mr. J. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J.K.

Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents.

In terms of the earlier order the learned Government Advocate has produced before the Court a copy of the Assam Home Guards Act & Rules, 1947, where, at paragraph 7(2) it is prescribed that a Home Guard after training shall serve for a period of six months, which period may be extended by the Government to a total period of not more than twelve months, and if the Government considers such extension necessary and shall thereafter serve in the reserve for a period of three years and while in reserve, they shall be liable to be called out for duty at any time.

The learned Government Advocate has also referred to the amendments made in the affidavit at paragraph 4 to submit that the deployment/redeployment of Home Guards are done on a rotation basis by resorting to an online software system which auto-generated Command Certificates depending upon their length and seniority of their release from duty.

Insofar as the Sribhumi District is concerned, the total number of Home Guards is 1160 and as per the Competent Authority the requirement is only of

102 Home Guards.

Although the averments made in the affidavit filed by the Government are referred to by the learned Government Advocate, however, the same are not supported by any materials, this Court permit the learned Government Advocate to place before the Court any relevant material to support their contentions that the deployment of Home Guards are being done on a rotation basis by an online software, and the specifications mentioned in Rule 7(2) are being consistently followed.

Let this matter be listed after two weeks.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant