Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010130222025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./183/2025 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006, ASSAM. 2: THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPTT. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03 ASSAM. 3: THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PALASHBARI TOWN PROTECTION CIRCLE WATER RESOURCES DEPTT. BHARALUMUKH GUWAHATI 9 4: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPTT. GUWAHATI WEST WATER RESOURCES DIVISION BHARALUMUKH GUWAHATI VERSUS ZENITH ENTERPRISE REPRESENTED BY ANWAR HUSSAIN, S/O AINUL HAQUE, R/O MIRZA NEW COLONY ROAD NO. 1, P.O. MIRZA AND P.S. PALASHBARI, DIST. KAMRUP (ASSAM) Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R M DAS, SC, WATER RESOURCE Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : WP(C)/5180/2021 ZENITH ENTERPRISE REPRESENTED BY ANWAR HUSSAIN S/O AINUL HAQUE RESIDENT OF MIRZA NEW COLONY ROAD NO. 1 PO MIRZA PS PALASHBARI DIST KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 2:SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT (PREVIOSLY DEPARTMENT OF FLOOD CONTROL) GUWAHATI 03 GOVT. OF ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03 4:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PALASHBARI TOWN PROTECTION CIRCLE (W.R) DEPARTMENT BHARALUMUKH GUWAHATI 09 5:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Page No.# 3/4 GUWAHATI WEST W.R DIVISION BHARALUMUKH GUWAHATI 9 ------------ Advocate for : MR. D K JAIN Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 13.08.2025 Heard Mr. R. M. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present review application has been filed praying for review of the common Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2022, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C).No.4734/2021 and other analogous matters. 3. Similar review petitions, assailing the judgment and order dated 27.09.2022, passed in WP(C).No.7833/2018 and other analogous matters was also a subject matter of challenge in Review Petition No.137/2025. 4. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on consideration of the matter was pleased to dismiss the said review petition vide order dated 30.07.2025. The conclusions drawn by the co-ordinate Bench in the order dated 30.07.2025, passed in Review Petition No.137/2025, being relevant is extracted hereinbelow: “5. Be that as it may, this Court finds that by the order dated 27.09.2022 direction was also issued to the Ministry of Jal Shakti to release the amount due under the scheme. The Ministry of Jal Shakti was duly represented by Mr. R. K. Dev Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India but no objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground of nonjoinder of necessary party. Moreover, the Page No.# 4/4 said Ministry has also not sought any review of the order. 6. It was for the petitioners to implead the Ministry of Jal Shakti and if they had failed to do so resulting in a situation where the order dated 27.09.2022 cannot be implemented on technical grounds, even then, it would be for the writ petitioners to face the consequences. The same cannot, however, be a ground for this Court to review/ recall the order dated 27.09.2022, which was passed by this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties including the Deputy Solicitor General of India representing the Ministry of Jal Shakti in the Union of India as well as the Brahmaputra Board. 7. For the reasons stated herein above, this Court does not find any good ground to review the order dated 27.09.2022.” 5. This Court is in respectful agreement with the conclusions reached by the Co-ordinate Bench vide Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2025 in Review Petition No.137/2025. The issue arising in the present proceeding being similar to the one arising in Review Petition No.137/2025, the decision as arrived at therein, would squarely apply to the present Review Petition. 6. Accordingly, in view of the conclusions drawn above, the present Review Petition is held to be devoid of merit and the same consequently stands dismissed. However there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant