Saturday, 16, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Writ vs The State Of Tripura And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 1723 Tri

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1723 Tri
Judgement Date : 19 March, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Tripura High Court

Writ vs The State Of Tripura And Others on 19 March, 2026

                                  Page 1 of 2




                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA

                             I.A. No.01 of 2026
                          In WP(C) No.516 of 2025

Smt. Biva Thapa
                                                            .....Writ Petitioner
                                  Versus
The State of Tripura and Others
                                                          ......Respondent(s)

AND In the matter of:

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited, (To be represented by the Managing Director, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited), Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S- East Agartala, Agartala, District- West Tripura.

......Applicant(s).

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Dhrubajyoti Saha, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Senior Advocate.

Ms. Aradhita Debbarma, Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

Order

19/03/2026

Heard learned counsel of both sides.

Mr. Dhrubajyoti Saha, learned counsel for TSECL, submits that time was consumed for collection of records and verification thereof and also for obtaining necessary instructions from the concerned higher authorities, and therefore the counter-affidavit could not be submitted earlier.

Mr. Saha, learned counsel further submits that the delay in filing the counter-affidavit was completely unintentional, and therefore, the order for payment of cost may be modified.

As it appears from the record, sufficient scope was earlier given to the TSECL to submit counter-affidavit. They first entered their appearance on 09.09.2025. Despite the same, they could not submit the counter-affidavit

in time. Considering thus, the prayer for relaxation of cost does not generate much satisfaction and the same is accordingly rejected.

Interlocutory application is, accordingly, disposed of.

JUDGE

SUJAY Digitally signed by SUJAY GHOSH

GHOSH 12:25:36 +05'30' Date: 2026.03.20

Dinashree

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter