Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010176632025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4681/2025 KOUSALYA MAHANTI WIFE OF MR KRUPASINDHU MAHANTI, R/O CHHATNA, ARANDUA, BHADRAK, ODISHA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS) PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT (PWRD) CHANDMARI GUWAHATI ASSAM 3:THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER (PIO) AND SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (PLANNING) OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS) PWRD CHANDMARI GUWAHATI ASSAM 4:THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS) PWRD CHANDMARI GUWAHATI ASSAM 5:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER (MECHANICAL BRANCH) Page No.# 2/3 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS) PWRD CHANDMARI GUWAHATI ASSA For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Bharadwaj, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. M. Das, SC, PWD BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 09.03.2026 Heard Mr. P. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. M. Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the PWD. 2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions upon the respondent Nos.3 & 4 to dispose of the application preferred by the petitioner under Sections 6 and 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act of 2005’) as expeditiously as possible as well as for various other consequential reliefs. 3. It is very relevant to take note of that the instant writ petition has been filed by one Kousalya Mahanti as the petitioner whereas all the documents which have been enclosed seeking information under the Act of 2005 are filed by one Shri Nishant Page No.# 3/3 Rai Surana, Advocate. There is not a single mention in those documents which are enclosed as Annexures A, B, D, E and G that the petitioner herein was involved in the said process. 4. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the instant application so filed is not maintainable. Apart from that, this Court further finds it very pertinent to take note of that if there is a delay in providing the information by the First Appellate Authority, the remedy is available under Section 19(3) of the Act of 2005. 5. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find the present case as a fit case for entertaining the writ petition. 6. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant