Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010118472023 2025:GAU-AS:14250 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3420/2023 SATYAJIT DAS SON OF LATE HIRA LAL DAS, PROPRIETOR OF- SRI KRISHNA LIBRARY WARD NO. 12, HAILAKANDI TOWN, P.S./P.S. AND DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI, PIN- 788151. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT DISPUR-6. 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI. 3:THE NATIONAL INFORMATIVE CENTRE HAILAKANDI DISTRICT UNIT DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION CENTRE. 4:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI AND IN CHARGE BALLOT PAPER AND MATERIAL SELL PANCHAYAT ELECTION 2013 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.Y. Choudhury, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. U. Das, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 27.10.2025 Heard Mr. A.Y. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court claiming an amount of Rs. 5,72,615/- on account of certain supplies which he claims were made by his father during his lifetime in the year 2013, and the same remains unpaid. 3. This Court duly takes note from the materials on record that though the petitioner claims that his father had made supplies in the year 2013, but there is no material to show that the respondents have at any stage admitted the said claim. 4. Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the instant writ petition was filed in the year 2023 in respect to claims pertaining to the year 2013 and it has become very difficult on the part of the respondents to make verification at such late stage. The learned Additional Senior Government Advocate further submitted that even the petitioner had Page No.# 3/3 submitted the representation only after a lapse of about 8 (eight) years in the year 2021. 5. Considering the above, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the petitioner is not entitled to seek redressal under the equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in that view of the matter, the petitioner instead of pursuing the instant proceedings, would be well advised to approach the competent Civil Court. 7. 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, if otherwise permissible under law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant