Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010154362025 2025:GAU-AS:16223 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4116/2025 ASHIT CH. DEY S/O- LATE ABINASH CH. DEY. R/O- SIDDHESWAR PART-II, P.O. AND P.S.- KATIGORAH, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN -788805. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING (PHE) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE MISSION DIRECTOR JJM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-36. 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PHE) WATER ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-36. 4:THE ADDITIONAL ENGINEER (PHE) BARAK VALLEY ZONE GHANGOOR SILCHAR-14. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (PHE) CACHAR CIRCLE SILCHAR 6:THE CHAIRMAN DWSM -CUM - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (NOW DISTRICT COMMISSIONER) Page No.# 2/4 CACHAR CACHAR SILCHAR 7:THE DISTRICT MISSION DIRECTOR JJM -CUM- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHE) SILCHAR (PHE) DIVISION NO.1 CACHAR. 8:THE A.E.E (P.H.E) SILCHAR SUB-DIVISION NO.1 CACHA For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. S. B. Choudhury, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Gogoi, SC, PHE : Ms. U. Das, Addl. Sr. GA, Assam BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 26.11.2025 Heard Ms. S. B. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the PHE Department. I have also heard Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.6. 2. The Petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the Respondent Authorities to pay an amount of Rs.8,95,500/- which the Petitioner claims to be entitled to in respect of the implementation of retrofitting of SARASPUR Piped Water Supply Scheme within the jurisdiction of Silchar PHE Division No.I under the programme Jal Jeevan Mission, Assam. 3. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner was issued a Page No.# 3/4 work order on 07.12.2020 for implementation of the retrofitting of SARASPUR Piped Water Supply Scheme within the jurisdiction of Silchar PHE Division No.I under the programme Jal Jeevan Mission, Assam. Subsequent to the work order issued on 07.12.2020, a revised work order was issued on 05.04.2023 whereby the scope of the work was added/extended. The approximate value of the revised work was Rs.46,50,250/-. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that while the Petitioner was executing the work of pipeline consisting of 2 (two) villages covering distance of 1.60 KM approximately from the Saraspur to Paikan side, the local people intervened and demanded water supply in their zone i.e. 3rd Zone which was not sanctioned earlier. Following the matter, a meeting was held consisting of Member of Zilla Parishad, G.P. President, A.P. Member and Ward Member of the Gaon Panchayat. In the said meeting, it was decided that the proposed pipeline should be constructed as a 3rd Zone from Saraspur Water Supply Scheme. The Petitioner accordingly constructed the distribution pipeline in the 3rd Zone of a length of 1600 meters which covered the areas and in that regard, the Petitioner was entitled to an amount of Rs.8,95,500/-. 5. Thereupon, after completion of the work, the Petitioner submitted his bill on 12.09.2023 as well as the reminder on 17.03.2025 before the Respondent No.7 with a prayer for payment of the bill for the 3rd Zone. It is pertinent to observe that there is no dispute as regards the bills pertaining to the 1st and 2nd Zone which were duly sanctioned. The said amount of Rs.8,95,500/- having not been paid in spite of being Page No.# 4/4 represented, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. Pursuant to the notice being issued, an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Respondent No.7 wherein nothing has been mentioned as regards the Petitioner’s entitlement of the amount of Rs.8,95,500/- but it refers to a verification report dated 19.09.2025 wherein the claim of the Petitioner has been denied due to absence of valid work order. The verification report has been enclosed as Annexure-A to the affidavit-in- opposition. 7. From the stand so taken by the Respondent Authorities, it is therefore apparent that the Respondent Authorities have denied that the Petitioner is entitled to any amount that too after carrying out the necessary verification. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to issue any writ as has been sought for as there is no admission on the part of the Respondent Authorities to make the payment. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 10. Before parting with the records, this Court however observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not prejudice as well as preclude the Petitioner to approach the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction, if so otherwise permissible under law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant