Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20122 (GAU)

ABDUL JABBAR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

WP(C)/5961/2025 · 2025-10-21

Devashis Baruah

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010224722025 2025:GAU-AS:14031 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5961/2025 ABDUL JABBAR SON OF SAHAR ALI, RESIDENT OF KOCHULUKHUWA, K.K. ROAD, P.O. NGAGAON, P.S. NAGAON SADAR, IN THE DISTRICT OF NAGAON, ASSAM. PIN -781001. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BASISTHA ASSAM WATER CENTRE GUWAHATI-29. 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NAGAON WATER RESOURCES DIVISION NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782001. 4:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES RAHA IN THE DISTRICT OF NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782103. 5:THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER NAGAON WATER RESOURCE DIVISION Page No.# 2/3 NAGAON PIN-782001 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S.S. Rahman, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Tinlung, Standing Counsel BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 22.10.2025 Heard Mr. S.S.S. Rahman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Tinlung, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Water Resources Department. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus, thereby directing the Respondent Authorities to pay an amount of Rs. 12,84,909/- on the ground that the said amount is payable to the petitioner. 3. It is duly taken note of that the amount which is being claimed by the petitioner pertain to the years 2012 and 2014. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that taking into account that the Respondent Authorities in a recent communication dated 28.11.2024 have issued a liability statement, the petitioner instead of pursuing the instant proceedings, would be well Page No.# 3/3 advised to approach the competent Civil Court. 5. Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition stands closed on withdrawal. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court claiming the said dues, if permissible under law. 6. The withdrawal of the instant writ petition, however, shall not prejudice the petitioner in any proceedings so initiated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant