Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010108642024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2856/2024 FARUKUDDIN AHMED SON OF LATE KHILAFUDDIN AHMED, R/O- NAZIRA TOWN, OPPOSITE OF POST OFFICE, WARD NO. 9, PO AND PS- NAZIRA, DIST.- SIVASAGAR, PIN- 785685. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM.
3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DIVISION DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR ASSAM.
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SIVASAGAR DISTRICT 5:THE REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
Page No.# 2/3 GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 6:THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 7:THE TREASURY OFFICER SIVASAGAR TREASURY SIVASAGAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA, MS J RAJKUMARI,MR. A K SAHU,MR. L N DIHINGIA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WATER RESOURCE, SC, FINANCE DEPTT.,MR A CHALIHA,MR. S R BORUAH (FOR R-4)
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 31.07.2026 Heard Shri L.N. Dihingia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. U. Das, learned State Counsel, Assam; Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department; Shri A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Assam and Shri Satyajit Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Assam. Shri Dihingia, learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, fairly submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, an amount of Rs.4,16,969/- has been received by him. He has, however, submitted that the claim amount was more, being Rs. 4,82,214/-. Shri Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, has, however clarified that there has
Page No.# 3/3 been TDS deduction and there is no outstanding as such. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no live cause of action which requires further adjudication. The writ petition accordingly stands closed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant