Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010164692025 2025:GAU-AS:10344 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4422/2025 MD. MUSTAFA KAMAL ALIAS MUSTAFA KAMAL S/O- LATE SHAHID ALI, VILL. NO. 2 KANDHULIMARI, P.O. KANDHULIMARI, P.S. DHING, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782001. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF JAL SHAKTI (LIT) MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, E- GOVERNANCE CELL, 6TH FLOOR CABIN, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT BASISTHA GUWAHATI-29. 4:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER NAGAON WATER RESOURCE CIRCLE NAGAON. 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MORIGAON WATER RESOURCE DIVISION MORIGAON Page No.# 2/4 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the petitioner(s): Ms. A Begum Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. P Seyie Date of hearing & judgment: 06.08.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Ms. A Begum, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. P Seyie, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5. As regards the respondent No.1 none has appeared, when the matter was called upon. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not making payment of an amount of Rs.11,77,835/- to which, the petitioner claims to be entitled to. It is noticed from the materials on record that the petitioner claims that the respondents had issued 3(three) work orders on 02.05.2012 and the respondent No.5 had issued 3(three) work orders on 17.09.2012. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had carried out the said works, but only certain amounts had been paid in the year Page No.# 3/4 2014. It is the further case of the petitioner that upon making an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 the petitioner could learn that a further amount of Rs.11,77,835/- is payable to the petitioner. 4. This Court had duly perused the writ petition and do not find that the petitioner had at all represented before the respondent authorities. It is a settled principle of law that for seeking a mandamus, the petitioner has to first approach the respondent authorities. 5. This Court further takes note of that the amount which was payable to the petitioner was sometime in the year 2013-14 and thereupon the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2025. There is no reasons assigned for the delay. This Court also cannot turn a blind eye to the aspect that a delayed claim of 12/13 years if filed, the respondents would not have records which would prejudice their defence. 6. In view of the above, on account of delay and laches as well as the manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court, it is the opinion of this Court that it is not a fit case to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 7. Before parting with the records, this Court observes that the Page No.# 4/4 dismissal of the writ petition shall not prejudice the writ petitioner to avail other remedies, if so, permissible under the law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant