Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010210732025 2025:GAU-AS:13523 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5795/2025 MD JIYAUR PASA S/O LATE SALIM PASA, NALBARI TOWN, WARD NO. 8, P.S. AND P.O. NALBARI, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM 781335 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS (ROADS) DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (ROADS) CHANDMARI GUWAHATI ASSAM 781003 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWRD NALBARI DIST. TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION NALBARI ASSAM 78133 For the petitioner (s) : Mr. S. Hoque, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. R. Dhar, SC PWD Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 26.09.2025 Heard Mr. S. Hoque, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Dhar, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the PWD. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action on the part of the Respondent Authorities in not issuing the site visit certificate inspite of the fact that the petitioner had approached the respondent No.3 by the communication dated 05.09.2025 along with photographic evidence containing geo-tag locations. 3. The Court has duly perused the materials on record, more particularly Annexure-F and from a perusal of the said document, it is seen that the request by the petitioner for the site visit certificate was received by the Office of the respondent No.3 on 06.09.2025 at 11:05 AM. 4. Be that as it may, this Court duly takes note of the photographs which have been enclosed to certify that the petitioner had, in fact, visited the site. A perusal of those photographs which are at Page Nos.168 & 169 of the writ petition, it is seen that the date mentioned in the photographs is 09.05.2025. 5. This Court enquired with the learned counsel appearing on Page No.# 3/3 behalf of the petitioner as to how the petitioner could provide photographs dated 09.05.2025 when the NIT was published on 13.08.2025. The learned counsel submitted that the date and the month must have been wrongly mentioned in those photographs, in as much as, as per his instructions, the photographs were taken on 05.09.2025. 6. It appears from a perusal of the photographs that the same were taken on 09.05.2025 and there is no explanation in the writ petition about the fact that the date and month not properly mentioned. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition, for which the writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant