Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010251852018 2021:GAU-AS:5660 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7813/2018 JITEN KALITA S/O. LT. GOBINDA KALITA, R/O. BASISSTHAPUR BYE LANE NO.2, RASARAJ PATH, P.O. BELTOLA, P.S. HATIGAON, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM-781028. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, ASSAM. 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 4:THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES ASSAM MEEN BHAVAN GUWAHATI-16. 5:THE DIST. FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NAGAON DISTRICT- NAGAON ASSAM-782002 Page No.# 2/4 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DEPTT. OF FISHERIES ASSAM ASSAM MEEN BHAVAN GUWAHATI-16. 7:THE TREASURY OFFICER KAMRUP (M) DISTRICT TREASURY GUWAHATI-01 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. NJ Gogoi Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. U Das Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 29.04.2026 Heard Mr. NJ Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. U Das, the learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. Mr. R Barpujari, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 7. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the non-release of the Security Deposit after completion of two works relating to upgradation of JB Garh Fish Farm, Raha in the district of Nagaon under RIDF XIX. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the said two works have been duly completed by the petitioner and the completion certificate have also been issued and as such, the petitioner is entitled to the return of the Security Deposits which were made in respect to the two works to the tune of Rs.13,22,006/-. Page No.# 3/4 4. The respondent authorities have filed their affidavit on 09.12.2025, wherein it has been mentioned that preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Officials under the Directorate of Fisheries, Assam in the light of the complaint dated 05.09.2018 issued by the RTI Activist Sri Dulal Bora, and upon such enquiry being conducted, it was found that there was prima facie evidence against the petitioner of misappropriation of Rs.44,39,000/-. It is also mentioned that there were further enquiries being carried out wherein there was prime facie evidence found for misappropriation of Rs.15,84,684/- in Sub Estimates Nos.6 and 9 under Package B and C and based upon such enquiry, the Director of Fisheries was requested to take follow-up actions against the defaulter. It is, therefore, the case of the respondents in the affidavit that the petitioner is not entitled to the amount of Rs.13,22,006/- as sought for, rather the respondent authorities are entitled to certain amount from the petitioner after deducting the said amount. 5. From the stand so taken by the petitioner as well as the respondents, it appears that the issue involved in the instant proceedings would require factual adjudication as to the entitlement of the petitioner, qua the claim so made by the respondents against the petitioner. 6. These aspect cannot be decided in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, inasmuch as the same would require in-depth analysis of the evidence, on which, such claims are being made. 7. Considering the above, this Court, therefore, is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed. 8. This Court, for the sake of clarity observes that it is on the ground of disputed questions of facts arising, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition for which the writ petition is dismissed. Page No.# 4/4 9. It shall not be a bar on the part of the petitioner or even the respondent authorities to approach the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction, if so, otherwise, permissible under the law. This Court further observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not prejudice the petitioner in such proceedings. 10. Taking into account that the petitioner has been bona fidely and diligently pursuing the instant proceedings on the belief that this Court would be exercising the jurisdiction, this Court is of the opinion that the period during which the instant writ petition has been pending should be excluded while computing the period of limitation. Accordingly, the period from 12.01.2018 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing any proceedings before the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. 11. This Court further takes note of the submission made by Mr. NJ Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the dismissal of the writ petition should not bar the petitioner to assail the communication dated 09.04.2021. It is observed that the instant writ petition pertained to the claim made by the petitioner for refund of the Security Deposit in respect to the two works, which on account of there being disputed questions of facts, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. The same, however, shall not bar the petitioner to challenge the communication dated 09.04.2021 in any appropriate proceedings, if so advised and permissible under law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant