Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010121022017 2025:GAU-AS:123 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/382/2017 SATISH CHANDRA DOLEY S/O. LT. ATUL CHANDRA DOLEY, VILL UJOVI GEZORA, P.O. GEZORA, PIN- 785110, DIST. MAJULI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE MISING AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL and 3 ORS. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECY., MISING AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL, GOGAMUKH, DHEMAJI, PIN-787029, ASSAM. 2:SRI REMISSION PAYENG JR. ENGINEER MISING AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL C/O. MISING AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL GOGAMUKH DHEMAJI Pin-787029. 3:SRI SHIVANATH PEGU S/O. NANDESWAR PEGU R/O. JABAR CHUK KATHARI P.O. GEZERA DIST- MAJULI PIN-785110 ASSAM. 4:SRI DINESH DOLEY S/O. RAGHUNATH DOLEY VILL. 2 NO. ANAICHUK NAMANI GEZERA Page No.# 2/3 DIST. MAJULI ASSAM PIN- 785110 For the petitioner (s) : Mr. G. Pegu, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. S. Borthakur, Advocate BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 06.01.2025 Heard Mr. G. Pegu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner herein has filed the instant writ petition claiming an amount of Rs.9,99,600/- on account of completion of the work pertaining to work order No.MAC/IZ/1213/30/95/2454 dated 26.03.2015. It is seen that pursuant to issuance of notice, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.1 wherein at paragraph No.6, it has been specifically denied that the petitioner had completed the work. Paragraph No.6 of the said affidavit, being relevant, is reproduced herein under:- “6. That the deponent denies the averments made in para 3 of the writ petition. It is specially denied that the petitioner had completed the allotted work as per the plan and investing money from his Page No.# 3/3 savings. It is stated that the work could not be executed as the fund for that year was not released and kept revenue deposited by the Govt. In 2015-16, the concerned JE, MAC was asked to inspect the worksite and furnish a verification report as to ascertain whether work was executed vide 2012-13 work order and the JE furnished a report that the work had not been executed. It is further stated that the work order was issued for construction of land spur but the verification report was annexed in the writ petition are in respect of Check Dam.” 3. Taking into account the above as the disputed questions of facts which arise in the instant proceedings, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction in the present case. 4. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails on account of non- entertaining the writ petition. 5. Be that as it may, this Court however grants the liberty to the petitioner to avail remedies before a Court of civil jurisdiction. In doing so, the period from 20.01.2017 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation. JUDGE Comparing Assistant