DIMASA ASSOCIATES Vs. NORTH CACHAR HILLS AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMIDST allegations and counter allegations of misrepresentation and suppression of facts on the part of the parties involved, all the writ petitions raising the same issue on same cause of action have been heard together.

(2.) WHILE the first three writ petitions, namely WP (C) Nos. 3543, 3544 and 3546 of 2008 were filed and moved on 13. 8. 2008, the other three writ petitions namely WP (C) Nos. 3740, 3741 and 3742 of 2008 have been filed on 26. 8. 2008 and have been moved today (27. 8. 2008 ). The respective dates of filing of the writ petitions have been indicated as the same has a bearing in view of the submission made by the learned counsel representing the respondent council that the writ petitioners while moving the first three writ petitions withheld their proper identity and relevant facts as was prevalent on that day and thereby not only got the writ petitions entertained, but also obtained interim relief.

(3.) THE challange made in the first three writ petitions is the decision of the respondent council to terminate the contracts awarded to the petitioners. Further prayer made is for a direction restraining the council from entering into any fresh contract. Be it stated here that the work involved is extraction, handling and transportation of Bamboo. In the subsequent three writ petitions the challange is the decision and the communication thereof cancelling the contracts, about which the petitioners allegedly came to know in the proceeding of the first three writ petitions when the council made the same known to them.