Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010159452025 2025:GAU-AS:16225 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4287/2025 MD DILNUR ALI @ DILNUR ALI SON OF FARAJAN ALI, R/O VILLAGE MADHAPUR, P.O.-MORAWA, P.S.- MUKALMUA, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781348 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BASISTHA ASSAM WATER CENTRE GUWAHATI-29 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NALBARI WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT NALBARI-KAITHALKUCHI ROAD GOPAL BAZAR NALBARI ASSAM- 781353 4:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NALBARI WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT NALBARI-KAITHALKUCHI ROAD GOPAL BAZAR NALBARI ASSAM- 78135 Page No.# 2/4 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. R. Sodial, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Tinlung, SC, Water Resource, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 26.11.2025 Heard Mr. M. R. Sodial, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. Tinlung, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Water Resource Department. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner claiming an amount of Rs.2,20,991/- which the Petitioner claims that the same is due to the Petitioner in respect to various contractual works carried out by the Petitioner from time to time. 3. It is pertinent to mention that in the writ petition, the Petitioner has not enclosed any work order(s). Additionally, it is also seen that certain running account bills have been enclosed for the year 2018-19 from where it is very difficult to ascertain as to what are the terms on which the Petitioner was allotted the work or for that matter, if any work was at all allotted. It is further seen that the Petitioner thereupon slept over his rights and on 24.04.2025, the Petitioner received a Liability Statement issued by the Executive Engineer, Nalbari Water Resource Division wherein it was mentioned that the Petitioner is entitled to certain balance payment in respect to various works and it is on the basis thereof, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Page No.# 3/4 4. This Court vide an order dated 01.08.2025 had issued notice. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Respondent No.2 wherein not only preliminary objections were taken as regards the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches but also mentioned at paragraph No.6 that the Petitioner claimed that work orders were allotted in the year 2018-19 but the Petitioner failed to enclose the relevant documents in the present writ petition from which one can come to a conclusion when the Petitioner completed the works and also any representation duly received by the Respondent Authorities was filed by the Petitioner to the Respondent Authorities for releasing his payments. It was also mentioned that in the year 2025, after receiving the liability statement from the Respondent No.3, the Petitioner has filed the writ petition. 5. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to file a reply specifically referring to Paragraph No.6 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.2. The Petitioner thereupon filed a rejoinder affidavit however, this time also the Petitioner has failed to produce any work order(s) on the basis of which the Petitioner claimed the amounts by way of the present writ petition. 6. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that without the work order(s) or any such documents being placed, any direction so passed upon the Respondents for carrying out any verification and then to make payment would serve no purpose inasmuch as the Petitioner himself has failed to produce the necessary documents. 7. Considering the above, it is the opinion of this Court that this is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Page No.# 4/4 Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 8. Before parting with the records, this Court however observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not prejudice or preclude the Petitioner to approach the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction, if so permissible under law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant