Procedural Fairness: Gauhati HC Adjourns Writ by 417 Petitioners for Counter-Affidavits and Full Party Representation

Gauhati High Court Adjourns Hearing in Major Writ Petition, Awaits Government Replies and CADC Representation

GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court, in an order dated May 19, 2025, has granted a three-week adjournment in a significant writ petition [WP(C) 136/2024] filed by Sh. Sujoy Tongchangya and 416 other individuals. The adjournment allows respondent authorities, including the Union of India and the Government of Mizoram, to file their counter-affidavits. The Court also noted it would await the representation of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC) and its Senior Revenue Officer, who were served notice but did not appear.

Case Background: 417 Petitioners Approach High Court

The writ petition, led by Sh. Sujoy Tongchangya and involving a total of 417 petitioners, names the Union of India (through the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Border Management), the Director BM-III Section (MHA), the Deputy Inspector General of Border Security Force (Aizawl), the Government of Mizoram (Land Revenue and Settlement Department), the Deputy Commissioner of Lawngtlai District, the Chakma Autonomous District Council, and its Senior Revenue Officer as respondents.

While the specific grievances and reliefs sought by the numerous petitioners are not detailed in the current procedural order, the nature of the respondents suggests the matter could pertain to issues concerning land, revenue, border management, or administrative actions affecting the petitioners, many of whom appear to belong to the Chakma and Tongchangya communities residing in Lawngtlai District, Mizoram.

Courtroom Proceedings and Order

During the hearing before Honourable Mrs. Justice Marli Vankung , Ms. Dinari T. Azyu appeared for the petitioners. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) representing the Union of India and Border Security Force (respondent Nos. 1 to 3), and Ms. Vanneihsiami , learned Government Advocate for the State of Mizoram and the Deputy Commissioner, Lawngtlai (respondent Nos. 4 & 5), both requested a short extension to file their respective counter-affidavits, indicating that these were nearly prepared.

The Court noted, "None appears for respondent Nos. 6 & 7 [Chakma Autonomous District Council and its Senior Revenue Officer], though the postal consignment report shows that notice is duly served on them."

In light of the requests for time to file responses and to ensure all parties are duly represented, Justice Vankung ordered: > "In view of the above, list the matter after 3 (three) weeks We may also await for respondent Nos. 6 & 7 to be duly represented."

Implications and Next Steps

This adjournment underscores the judicial principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side), ensuring that all respondents have an adequate opportunity to present their case through counter-affidavits before the matter is taken up for further consideration. The High Court will resume hearing the petition after three weeks, by which time the Union and State government respondents are expected to have filed their replies, and efforts will likely be made to secure representation for the Chakma Autonomous District Council and its officer. The progression of this case, involving a substantial number of petitioners and multiple governmental bodies, will be closely watched.