Case Law
Subject : Service Law - Writ Petition
Description :
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].
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.
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.
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."
The court has scheduled the next hearing for the matter after three weeks. Crucially, Justice
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.
#GauhatiHighCourt #InterimRelief #ServiceLaw
Supreme Court Rules Criminal Courts Must Not Act As Recovery Agents For Disputed Dues
27 Jul 2026
Rajya Sabha Bill Seeks To Criminalize Vande Mataram Disruption Under The National Honour Act
27 Jul 2026
Will Competitive Exams Deplete Delhi District Courts of Judges During Crucial Trial Proceedings This Year?
27 Jul 2026
Bombay High Court Adjourns Defamation Case Involving Union Minister Nitin Gadkari And Online Media Platforms
28 Jul 2026
Rajasthan High Court Directs State to Form Separate Wings for Crime Investigation and Security
28 Jul 2026
Gujarat High Court Upholds Constitutionality Of CGST Section 16 2 c Denying Unpaid Input Tax
28 Jul 2026
Punjab and Haryana High Court Issues New Guidelines For Legal Aid Defense Counsel System
28 Jul 2026
Government Introduces Public Examinations Amendment Bill 2026 In Lok Sabha To Curb Exam Paper Leaks
28 Jul 2026
Should Delhi High Court Increase Pecuniary Jurisdiction of District Courts to ₹10 Crore Threshold?
28 Jul 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.