Rajib Kumar Dholua And 11 Ors. vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors
Held
The Court allowed the interlocutory application, holding that there was a typographical error in the interim order dated November 2, 2018. The Court found that the omission of the word 'not' after 'may' and 'proceed' was a mistake and that the intention was to impose an interim stay on the tendering process. Consequently, the Court directed that the sentence in the interim order be corrected to read: 'Till the next returnable date Respondents may not proceed further with the tendering process without leave of the Court and the status of the petitioner as on today will continue till the next date.' The Court did not decide on the merits of the main writ petition, as this application was solely for correction of a procedural order.
Facts
The petitioners, twelve individuals, filed a writ petition (WP(C) No. 7613/2018) before the Gauhati High Court. They subsequently filed an interlocutory application (I.A. (Civil) 3883/2018) seeking correction of a typographical error in an interim order passed by the Court on November 2, 2018. The original interim order stated that respondents 'may proceed further with the tendering process without leave of the Court'. The petitioners contended that the word 'not' was inadvertently omitted after 'may' and 'proceed', and that the Court's intention was to grant an interim stay on the tendering process. The respondents, represented by the Union of India and GST authorities, had no objection to the proposed correction.
Key Issues
1. Whether there was a typographical error in the interim order dated 02.11.2018, specifically the omission of the word 'not' after 'may' and 'proceed', and if so, should the order be corrected to reflect the Court's intended stay on the tendering process? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the omission of the word 'not' was a typographical error and that the Court's intention was to grant an interim stay on the tendering process. They sought correction of the order to accurately reflect this intention. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondents, represented by the Assistant Solicitor General of India, stated that they had no objection to the correction sought by the petitioner.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010247792018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 3883/2018 in WP(C) 7613/2018 1:RAJIB KUMAR DHOLUA AND 11 ORS. S/O- LATE SUSTHIR KUMAR DHOLUA, R/O- CHIRING CHAPORI (THANA GOLI), P.O- DIBRUGARH, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786001 2: GONESH RAJBONGSHI S/O- LATE KHETU RAJBONGSHI R/O- PASCHIM MILAN NAGAR NAGA BARI P.O CR BUILDING DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786003 3: KONENG CHAYENGIA D/O- LATE CONGADHAR SONKORA R/O-PASCHIM MILAN NAGAR Q LANE P.O- CR BUILDING DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786003 4: JAGMOHAN BASFOR S/O- LATE BIJOY BASFOR R/O- CHOWKIDINGI DIBRU COLONY MANCOTTA ROAD P.O- CR BUILDING DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5 PIN- 786003 5: DEBAJIT SAIKIA S/O- LATE BONAMALI SAIKIA R/O- MANCOTTA TEPOR GAON P.O- CR BUILDING DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786003 6: MRIGANKA KASHYAP R/O- LILA GOGOI PATH MILAN NAGAR P.O- CR BUILDING DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786003 7: ARUN GOGOI S/O- LATE LAKHESWAR GOGOI R/O- NATUN BECHAA PATHAR BECHA PATHAR P.O- DIBRUGARH DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786001 8: SANJIB G MOMIN S/O- LA
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.