Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010284182023 2025:GAU-AS:12631 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7386/2023 SMTI. PARUL ROY W/O LATE SUBRATA ROY, VILL-MADHUSOULMARI PT-I, P.O.-KHUDIMARI, P.S.-GAURIPUR, DIST-DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783331 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, POWER AND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN APDCL BIJULEE BHAVAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-01 3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (D) (LAZ) APDCL BIJULEE BHAVAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-01 4:THE CHIEF PROJECT MANAGER PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-01 5:THE GENERAL MANAGER (LAZ) SIXTH MILES Page No.# 2/4 GUWAHATI-22 6:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER KOKRAJHAR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE APDCL KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN-783370 7:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KOKRAJHAR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE APDCL KOKRAJHAR (ASSAM) PIN-783370 8:THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER DHUBRI ELECTRICAL DIVISION GAURIPUR APDCL DHUBRI (ASSAM) PIN-78330 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. F. N. U. Mollah, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. R. Baruah, Government Advocate : Mr. R. Bora, Standing Counsel BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 15.09.2025 Heard Mr. A. F. N. U. Mollah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. S. R. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1. I have also heard Mr. R. Bora, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 8. 2. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the non-payment of an amount Page No.# 3/4 of Rs.12,11,285/- which was due to her husband from the Respondent Authorities for the works done by her husband. 3. It is relevant to take note of that the Petitioner claims an amount of Rs.12,11,285/- on the basis of certain works done by the husband of the Petitioner in pursuance to a communication dated 03.05.2012 issued by the Deputy General Manager, Kokrajhar Electrical Circle to the Chief Project Manager, Project Implementation Unit for Civil Works at 33/11 KV, Ambagan, Sub-Station in Dhubri. 4. The materials on record nowhere show that the Respondents have admitted that the said amount is due to the husband of the Petitioner. This Court further takes note of the affidavit-in-opposition so filed by the Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 wherein it has been mentioned that after detail discussion and verification of the available documents and records, it was found that only two numbers of work orders have been issued in favour of the husband of the Petitioner however it could not be confirmed as to whether the husband of the Petitioner had carried out those works. 5. This Court also finds it pertinent to take note of that the claims so made in the present proceedings are claims pertaining to the period even prior to 2012. These claims have been made not even during the lifetime of the husband of the Petitioner and that too after lapse of a decade. 6. It is relevant to observe that when such belated claims are filed that too after more than a decade, any directions so passed would cause great prejudice to the Respondents as they would be deprived of a legitimate defence. This Court further is of the opinion that as the claims made by the Petitioner have not been admitted, it would not be in the Page No.# 4/4 interest of justice to pass any order in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. Considering the above, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 8. Liberty however is given to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum subject to being permissible under law and the period from 13.12.2023 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation. JUDGE Comparing Assistant