Page No.# 1/2 vs Dr. N Sahewalla And Company Pvt. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4271 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010179742022




                        THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                            Case No. : WA/285/2022

          THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS.
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENSE,
          GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, INDIA

          2: STATION COMMANDER (BRIGADIER) JORHAT MILITARY STATION
           STATION CELL, HQ 41 SUB AREA, PIN-908641
           C/O 99 APO

          3: OFFICIATING ADMINISTRATIVE COMMANDANT (COLONEL) JORHAT
          MILITARY STATION, STATION CELL, HQ 41 SUB AREA, PIN-908641
           C/O 99 AP

          VERSUS

          DR. N SAHEWALLA AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. AND 2 ORS.
          HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BORDOLOI AVENUE, AMC ROAD,
          DIBRUGARH (ASSAM) IS REPRESENTED BY SRI KAMAL JAIN, S/O LATE
          TR JALAN, R/O SEUNI ALI, P.O. AND P.S.-JORHAT (ASSAM)

          2:JORHAT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JORHAT
           REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN (IN CHARGE)
          AT ROAD, MALOW ALI, JORHAT
          ASSAM, PIN-785001

          3:THE CHAIRMAN, JORHAT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
          AT ROAD, MALOW ALI, JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN-78500

For the Appellant(s)    :     Mr. S.K. Medhi, Central Government Counsel.

For the Respondent(s)   :    Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Senior Advocate assisted by

Mr. H.K. Sarma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Page No.# 2/2

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

12.10.2023

Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel representing the appellants, on instructions, has stated that the appellant authorities are not agreeable to the observations made by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2023 regarding the issue of permitting the respondent No.1 to raise a safety/boundary wall on its land for the Hospital. The said direction was given by this Court keeping in view the fact that allowing the facility to function adjacent to the defence installation without a boundary wall may pose a risk to the defence installation. However, Mr. Medhi submits that the defence installation is already encumbered by a boundary and thus, there is no possibility of the defence installation facing any risk even if the safety/boundary wall is not constructed by the respondent No.1.

Final arguments have been heard.

Judgment is reserved.

                         JUDGE                                     CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant