Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010200022023 2025:GAU-AS:16484 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6519/2023 M/S ASSENT CHEMICALS LIMITED REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL, S/O- LATE SATTYANARAYAN AGARWAL. REGD OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR , ROYAL SILVER TOWER , LACHIT NAGAR, ULUBARI, KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI VERSUS GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER , GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, GUWAHATI-01 2:THE COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPALITY CORPORATION GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE GUWAHATI-0 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. H. Betala, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Bora, SC, GMC Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 28.11.2025 Heard Mr. H. Betala, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. S. Bora, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the GMC. 2. This is the third writ petition filed claiming an amount of Rs.1,50,956/- on the ground that in spite of specific directions being issued by this Court, the Respondents neither verified the claim of the Petitioner and nor made payment. It is seen that the claim of the Petitioner pertains to the year 2005. 3. The record reveals that the Petitioner earlier had filed WP(C) No.1111/2007, Contempt Case (Civil) No.571/2007 and WP(C) No.6404/2014 and now the present writ petition. The stand of the Respondent GMC is that they do not have materials for verifying as to whether the Petitioner is entitled to any amount. 4. In pursuance to the said stand being brought on record by filing an affidavit, this Court vide an order dated 15.10.2025 granted liberty to the Petitioner to bring on record by way of an additional affidavit the documents on the basis of which the Petitioner makes its claim. Pursuant thereto, an additional affidavit has been filed. 5. A perusal of the contents of the said additional affidavit reveal that the Petitioner had enclosed various invoices of the year 2005 however there is no material brought before this Court that these supplies which were allegedly made for which the invoices have been enclosed as Page No.# 3/3 Annexure- B to K were received by the Respondent GMC. In addition to that, there is also no material to show that the original documents were submitted by the Petitioner as claimed. 6. Considering the above, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked as there is no admission on the part of the Respondents in any manner whatsoever in respect to the claim of the Petitioner. It is also the opinion of this Court that such dispute can only be adjudicated by a competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction wherein evidence can be adduced. 7. Accordingly, this Court therefore dismisses the instant writ petition on the ground that this is not a fit case for being entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution. Liberty however is given to the Petitioner to approach the Court of competent Civil Jurisdiction, if so advised. 8. It is further observed that the period during which the various proceedings filed by the Petitioner from time to time claiming the said amount, as claimed in the instant writ petition, be excluded while computing the period of limitation inasmuch as it appears that the Petitioner has been diligently and bonafidely pursuing various proceedings. JUDGE Comparing Assistant