JAHIDUL ENTERPRISE v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
WP(C)/3149/2023 · 2025-06-15
Arun Dev Choudhury
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 13473 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 13473 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010118522023
2025:GAU-AS:7936
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3149/2023 JAHIDUL ENTERPRISE REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR JAHIDUL HOQUE, AGE 28 YEARS, S/O- KHAI MOHAMMAD, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MODHUSOULMARI PART-II, VILL. AND P.O.- MODHUSOULMARI PART-II, PS- GAURIPUR, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JURIPAR PANJABARI GUWAHATI- 781037.
3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DHUBRI ZILLA PARISHAD DHUBRI PO AND DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM
PIN- 783301.
Page No.# 2/3 4:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (DRDA) DHUBRI PO AND DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM
PIN- 783301.
5:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GAURIPUR DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GAURIPUR PO- GAURIPUR
DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM
PIN- 783331.
6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHUBRI PO AND DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM
PIN- 783301 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S U AHMED, MR A HAWARI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., GA, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 16.06.2025
1. None appears for the petitioner on call. Though, Ms. N. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for the P&RD Department is present.
2. Claiming non-payment of contractual bill, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Page No.# 3/3
3. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 5 i.e. Block Development Officer of Gauripur Development Block, inter alia amongst other, contending that the works stated to have been completed by the petitioner and bill submitted therefor, are not authenticated by the concerned authority. It is their further stand that the schemes, those were purportedly executed by the petitioner are not within the list of schemes.
4. Be that as it may, as none appears for the petitioner on call, the writ petition stands dismissed for non prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant