Gauhati High Court Extends Interim Order for 359 Petitioners, Citing Pending RTI Enquiry. - 2025-07-01

Gauhati High Court Extends Interim Relief for 359 Petitioners Against Mara District Council

Aizawl, Mizoram – The Gauhati High Court has extended an interim order in favour of 359 petitioners in their case against the Mara Autonomous District Council (MADC). The court granted the petitioners additional time to file a reply, ensuring that the existing interim relief remains in effect until the next hearing.

The order was passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mridul KumarKalita in the case of Sh. Derick Salai Solo & 358 Ors. vs Mara Autonomous District Council & Ors. [WP(C)/102/2024].

Case Overview

The writ petition involves a significant number of individuals, led by Sh. Derick Salai Solo, against the MADC and its officials, including the Chief Executive Member and the Executive Secretary. The Government of Mizoram, through its Finance and District Council Affairs departments, are also respondents in the matter.

During the hearing on June 27, 2025, the court addressed a procedural request that highlighted the ongoing nature of the dispute.

Arguments in Court

Ms. Dinari T. Azyu, counsel for the 359 petitioners, requested an adjournment, stating that her clients needed more time to file a comprehensive reply to the affidavit-in-opposition submitted by the MADC. She informed the court that the delay was due to an awaited response to a Right to Information (RTI) query, the details of which are crucial for their rebuttal.

Representing the MADC (respondent Nos. 1-3), Senior Counsel Mr. C. Lalramzauva objected to the prayer for adjournment. He argued that the petitioners were currently benefiting from an interim order, and any further delay was prejudicial to the respondents.

Court’s Order and Rationale

After hearing the submissions from both sides, Justice Mridul KumarKalita exercised judicial discretion in favour of the petitioners. The court acknowledged the reason cited for the delay—the pending RTI information—as a valid ground for granting more time.

In its order, the court stated:

"though, the learned Senior Counsel has objected to the prayer for further adjournment on the ground that the petitioners are enjoying interim relief, however, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the reply could not be filed as they are awaiting the receipt of their RTI enquiry. Hence, the prayer is allowed."

Final Decision and Implications

The court has scheduled the next hearing for the matter after three weeks. Crucially, Justice Kalita directed that the "Interim order shall continue till the next date."

This decision ensures that the status quo is maintained and the protections granted to the 359 petitioners by the initial interim order are not disturbed. The ruling underscores the court's approach to balancing procedural requirements with the substantive rights of the parties, allowing them a fair opportunity to present their case, even if it requires extending an ongoing interim relief.