Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 71-76]All India Railway Passengers User Facilities Federation v. The Union of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 71Rohit Choudhury v. The State of Assam & 10 Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 72Md. Ohiduz Zaman vs. State of Assam & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 73Pritam Sovasaria v. The Union of India and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 74Patanjali Foods Limited...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 71-76]
All India Railway Passengers User Facilities Federation v. The Union of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 71
Rohit Choudhury v. The State of Assam & 10 Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 72
Md. Ohiduz Zaman vs. State of Assam & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 73
Pritam Sovasaria v. The Union of India and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 74
Patanjali Foods Limited v. The State of Assam and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 75
Khurshida Ahmed v. Enuish Ali & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 76
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: All India Railway Passengers User Facilities Federation v. The Union of India & Anr.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 71
The Gauhati High Court recently dismissed a PIL which alleged that Railways have failed to maintain punctuality, safety standards, amenities and service quality on the ground that the grievances in the petition were more in the nature of general policy suggestions and not legally enforceable rights.
The division bench comprising the Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed, “At the outset, we note that the petition is bereft of any concrete material particulars or data. Except for bald statements and general assertions, the writ petition does not refer to any specific incident of derailment/accident, identified safety lapse, particularly in any stretch of track, or any statutory violation which would justify exercise of this Court's extra-ordinary jurisdiction.”
Case Title: Rohit Choudhury v. The State of Assam & 10 Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 72
The Gauhati High Court recently directed the Assam Government to enforce prohibitory orders to control illegal fishing in the water bodies in Kaziranga National Park.
The division bench comprising the Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury was hearing a PIL seeking urgent judicial intervention to curb large-scale fishing in the water bodies of Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve in Assam.
Case Title: Md. Ohiduz Zaman vs. State of Assam & Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 73
The Gauhati High Court recently granted relief to a retired college lecturer who was denied UGC pay scale holding that the benefit cannot be denied as possession of M.Phil, NET, SLET, or Ph.D qualification was not mandatory on the date of the lecturer's regularization.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Robin Phukan, who observed, “Since possession of M. Phil/NET/SLET/Ph.D. qualification was not a mandatory requirement on 12.11.1993, i.e. the date of regularization of service of the petitioner, then depriving the petitioner of the benefit of the UGC scale of pay from the date of his regularization, i.e. 12.11.1993, imposing the conditions that the petitioner– (a) will have to obtain M. Phil or Ph. D. degree within 8(eight) years from the date of approval of his appointment; and (b) will not be eligible to draw senior scale of pay/Grade of pay until fulfills the conditions laid down in the letter, to the considered opinion of this Court, is illegal and arbitrary and on such count, the same warrants interference of this court.”
Case Title: Pritam Sovasaria v. The Union of India and Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 74
The Gauhati High Court held that a GST registration cannot be cancelled on the basis of a cryptic show cause notice, which merely quotes statutory provisions without disclosing the factual grounds.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi noted that apart from stating the provisions of Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act, there are no facts or any details stated in the show cause notice.
Case Title: Patanjali Foods Limited v. The State of Assam and Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 75
The Gauhati High Court found that Clause 8 of the Assam Industries [Tax Reimbursement for Eligible Units] Scheme, 2017, which restricts input tax credit, runs contrary to the Constitutional framework and the provisions of the CGST Act. Consequently, the bench stayed the operation of the show-cause notices (SCN) issued to Patanjali Foods Limited.
Justice Manish Choudhury was addressing a case in which Patanjali Foods Limited, the assessee, challenged the constitutional validity of Clause 8 of the Assam Industries [Tax Reimbursement for Eligible Units] Scheme, 2017.
Case Title: Khurshida Ahmed v. Enuish Ali & Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 76
The Gauhati High Court dismissed a woman's appeal against an order directing her to refund over ₹4 Lakh to a third party for sale of a truck which she had bought on a loan, holding that she could not have sold or transferred the vehicle to a third party when she had no ownership right over the vehicle.
The appellant had purchased a Tata truck on hire purchase agreement, but she failed to pay the installments after 23.06.2011 to the finance company. A deed was executed between the appellant and the respondent that as there was an outstanding loan, the respondent would pay Rs.13,500 as monthly instalments till clearance to the finance company.