M/S S S Infrazone Pvt Ltd v. Smti Gimen Apang

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040016322024

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/232/2024 M/s S S Infrazone Pvt Ltd Ramsing Village, PO and PS Jengging, Upper Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. represented by its power of attorney holder Shri Oni Pangkam, Son of Shri Alo Pangkam, resident of Village Ramsing, PO and PS Jengging, Upper Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.

VERSUS Smti Gimen Apang Wife of Shri Taying Nokar, resident of Ramsing Village, PO and PS Jengging, Upper Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.

Advocate for the Petitioner : Oyina Perme, Advocate for the Respondent : Adam Tatak, Linked Case : WP(C)/485/2024 Smti Gimen Apang Age: 41 Occupation : Address:Wife of Shri Taying Nokar resident of Ramsing Village PO and PS Jengging Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 5 Ors Age: 0 Page No.# 2/3 Occupation : Address:represented by the Chief Secretary Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 791111 2:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Department of Geology and Mining Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 791111 3:The Member Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Arunachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun 791110 4:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 791002 5:The Divisional Forest Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Yingkiong Forest Division Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 791002 6:M/s S S Infrazone Pvt Ltd Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by Shri Darshan Singh having its registered office at Ramsing Village Jengging Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 791002 ------------ Advocate for : Adam Tatak Advocate for : GA (AP) appearing for The State of AP and 5 Ors: Advocate , appearing for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, respectively. Page No.# 3/3

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 23-12-2024 Heard Mr. T. Tatak, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. A. Talom, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party and Mr. Y. Riram, learned State counsel appearing for the State respondents. Mr. T. Tatak, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has instructions not to press this interlocutory application. Therefore, he prays that the application may be allowed to be withdrawn. Prayer is allowed. Accordingly, interlocutory application stands dismissed on withdrawal. JUDGE Comparing Assistant