Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam on 5 August, 2025

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam on 5 August, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                     Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010065882025




                                                              2025:GAU-AS:10289

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

                             Case No. : WP(C)/1832/2025

           BHABA KANTA NATH
           S/O- LATE SUNDER NATH, R/O- 243 SURAVI PATH, NEAR DPI, KAHILIPARA
           ROAD, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP



           VERSUS

           THE STATE OF ASSAM
           REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GUWAHATI
           DEVELOPMENT DEPTT, 4TH FLOOR, BLOCK D, ASSAM SACHIVALAYA,
           DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781005

           2:GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
            REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
            SECOND FLOOR
           T AND CP BUILDING
            DISPUR
            GUWAHATI-781006

           3:THE COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
            SECOND FLOOR
           T AND CP BUILDING
            DISPUR
            GUWAHATI-78100

For the Petitioner(s)   : Mr. A. Pator, Advocate

For the Respondent(s)   : Mr. S. Bora, Standing Counsel
                                                               Page No.# 2/3

                               BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

                                ORDER

Date : 05.08.2025

Heard Mr. A. Pator, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner. Mr. S. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel
appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the inaction on the
part of the Respondent Authorities in not making payment of
the bill dated 22.03.2022 for the services provided by the
petitioner for the period from 01.07.2021 to 31.07.2021. It is
further seen from the records that the petitioner claimed that
the petitioner was asked to carry out certain works verbally by
the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the petitioner duly performed
the works. However, the payments have not been made.

3. The materials on record do not show what amount the
petitioner actually claims. Further, there is also no admission on
the part of the Respondent Authorities that the petitioner have
carried out any work, save and except, certain documents
provided to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act,
2005.

4. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing
on behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials on
Page No.# 3/3

record. This Court does not find the present case to be a fit
case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, in absence of any work order being issued
to the petitioner and nothing on record to show that the
petitioner having done the work, the same was recognized by
the Respondent Authorities.

5. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
instant writ petition, for which, the instant writ petition stands
dismissed.

6. Be that as it may, this Court however observes that the
petitioner herein, if so advised, would be at liberty to approach
the appropriate Civil Court seeking recovery of the amounts
from the Respondent Authorities and the filing of the instant
writ petition shall be deemed to be a notice to the Respondent
Corporation in terms with Gauhati Municipal Corporation Act,
1971, if the petitioner files a suit seeking recovery of money.

7. The period during which the instant writ petition was
pending i.e. from 25.03.2025 till date be excluded while
computing the period of limitation.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant