Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010175782025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4639/2025 EASTERN ENVO PROTECT REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER LAKSHMI MITRA, PROGOTI COMMERCIAL COMPLEX (OPPOSITE TO PANTALOONS), G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI-22, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, 4 TH FLOOR, A- BLOCK, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, ASSAM 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GROUND FLOOR B- BLOCK ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 ASSAM 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT CUM MEMBER SECRETARY GAUHATI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL GUWAHATI-781032. 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT P.W.D. BUILDING ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003. 5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI BUILDING CIRCLE-II CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003 For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. S. Z. Hayat, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Gogoi, Addl. Advocate General BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 18.08.2025 Heard Ms. S. Z. Hayat, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of all the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ proceedings is that instead of making payment of an amount of Rs.1,43,61,600/- to the petitioner to which the petitioner claims to be entitled, the respondent authorities in total disregard to the factual scenario have held that the petitioner on the other hand is to pay to the respondent authorities an amount of Rs.19,43,103/- vide an order dated 19.05.2025. 3. This Court has duly taken note of the materials on record as well as the submissions so made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 4. From the materials on record as well as the submission so made, it Page No.# 3/4 appears that vide an order dated 19.07.2024 passed in WP(C) No.2704/2022, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent authorities to verify as to whether the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,43,61,600/- and thereupon, if the petitioner was found to be entitled to, the said amount or any part thereof, the same be paid to the petitioner. The respondent authorities however did not carry out the necessary verification then for which the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing a contempt proceedings being Contempt Case (C) No.651/2024. During the said proceedings, the counsel who had appeared on behalf of the contemnors have placed before this Court an order dated 19.05.2025 whereby it was mentioned that the petitioner was not entitled to any amount rather the respondent department was entitled to an amount of Rs.19,43,103/-. Taking into account the said, the contempt proceedings was dropped vide an order dated 22.05.2025 giving liberty to the petitioner to assail the said order dated 19.05.2025. 5. This Court has also perused the order dated 19.05.2025 whereby as regards the claim of Rs.2,81,600/- per month to the petitioner, the respondent authorities have calculated an amount of Rs.58,850/- per month. In addition to that, the respondent authorities have also observed that on account of damages being caused to the STP’s machineries and equipment, there is a recovery to be made from the petitioner to the tune of Rs.50,70,000/- and on the basis thereof, have arrived at a figure that the petitioner was liable to pay an amount of Rs.19,43,103/-. 6. This Court has duly taken note of that the facts as to whether the petitioner would be entitled the amount of Rs.2,81,600/- per month; as Page No.# 4/4 to whether the verification was correctly done or not; and further to that, as to whether the damages for which the respondents have claimed an amount of Rs.50,70,000/- are actually payable by the petitioner falls within the realm of disputed questions of facts which can only be decided in a proceedings where evidence can be laid. 7. Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed. However grants liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of its grievances. 8. The instant order so passed herein shall not cause any prejudice to the petitioner in the circumstance the petitioner avails appropriate remedies as noted above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant