Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010116772015 2025:GAU-AS:13811 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3149/2015 M/S B.C. BAROOWA ENGINEERS and BUILDERS, A PROP. CONCERN, REP. BY ITS PROP. SRI BHABESH CHANDRA BAROOWA, R/O NILGIRI PATH, R.G. B. ROAD, GHY- 24, DIST- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF IRRIGATION, DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF IRRIGATION DISPUR GHY-6 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION GOVT.OF ASSAM GHY-3 4:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER MANGALDAI CIRCLE IRRIGATION MANGALDOI 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MANGALDAI DIVISION IRRIGATION MANGALDOI ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 6:THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHAT B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) :Ms. T Wapangla Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. N Upadhyay Standing Counsel, Irrigation Dept. Date of hearing & judgment :15.10.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Ms. T Wapangla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. N Upadhyay, the learned Standing Counsel Irrigation Department appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved at the non-payment of the admitted outstanding liability due to the petition as reflected in the report of the respondent No.5 dated 01.08.2014 in respect of “Improvement of Kalapani Irrigation Scheme (Construction of new headwords of Kalapani I/S including dewatering etc.)” as well Page No.# 3/5 as in terms of the admission made in the letter dated 20.08.2014 issued by the Chief Engineer (M.I), Irrigation, Assam. 3. The petitioner lays emphasis on a report marked as Annexure- K, wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner was entitled to an amount of Rs.85,85,896/-. 4. Pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, an affidavit was filed by the respondent No.2 stating inter alia that the tender work in question was allotted to the petitioner and further stated that the matter of payment against the work implemented by the petitioner is now with the Government in the Irrigation Department and the approval of the matter is awaited. On receipt of the Government approval/sanction of the fund, necessary arrangement will be made as required. It was further stated that the petitioner was paid for non completion of the Bholanath Bund scheme which needs to be made recovery from the petitioner against the bill amount at the time of payment. This affidavit was filed on 02.11.2018. Subsequent thereto, an additional affidavit has been filed on 12.06.2024, wherein it has been mentioned that the entire amount of up-to-date bill value against work allotted and completed under Bholanath Bund scheme to the petitioner was to the tune of Rs.3,74,85,882/- and the same was duly paid. It was further mentioned that an amount was recoverable Page No.# 4/5 from the petitioner to the tune of Rs.62,42,396.94/- as per statement. Further to that, it has also been mentioned that though the Chief Engineer submitted the same to the Government in the Irrigation Department for approval, the same was not approved by the Government on the aforesaid reason and hence the amount claimed by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.85,85,896/- in present petition cannot be paid. 5. From the materials on record and upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, it, therefore, appears that there are disputes as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any amount or the Irrigation Department, on the other hand, is to recover any amount from the petitioner. Considering the same, the said aspect cannot be decided in a writ proceedings wherein evidence cannot be led. 6. Under such circumstances, the present writ petition cannot be entertained on the ground that disputed questions of fact arises as regards as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any amount or the Irrigation Department is on the other hand entitled to any recovery from the petitioner. 7. Consequently the instant writ petition, therefore, stands Page No.# 5/5 dismissed. 8. Before parting with the records, this Court, however, observes that taking into account that the instant writ petition has been dismissed on being not entertained and the petitioner has been bona fidely pursuing the present litigation, the petitioner is given the liberty to approach the appropriate Court of competent jurisdiction, if so advised, and the period from 21.05.2015 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation. The dismissal of the present writ petition shall not prejudice the petitioner. JUDGE Comparing Assistant