KAKU POTOM Vs. STATE OF A. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. B. Kamdak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted at the outset that he has been instructed not to appear for the petitioner as the petitioner would like to present his case in-person. It is also submitted that the case brief has also been taken away and accordingly, he prays for an adjournment.

(2.) We have taken note of the said submission. However, on the ground that the prayer for recusal of the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been presented in accordance with the requirement of Rule 67 and 68 of Chapter-V of the Gauhati High Court Rules, the same cannot be accepted. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he does not have mandate to appear, this Court is inclined to proceed with hearing by treating as if the petitioner has remained unrepresented when the matter has been called up for hearing.

(3.) We have heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. L. Perme, learned Standing counsel for the Power Department, representing the State respondent Nos. 1 to 5, 7 and 8; Mr. D. Pangging, learned counsel for respondent No. 6; Mr. O. Pada, learned Standing counsel for the SIC and Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Saxena, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 10 and 11.