M/S. KALITA CONSTRUCTION AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
WP(C)/1733/2018 · 2025-12-14
Devashis Baruah
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 27674 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 27674 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010058482018
2025:GAU-AS:17434
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1733/2018 M/S. KALITA CONSTRUCTION AND ANR.
A REGD PROP CONCERN HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT VILLAGE AND P.O- ARJUNGURI P.S- SIVASAGAR DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM REP. BY ITS PROP SRI PUNYA DHAR KALITA 2: PUNYA DHAR KALITA S/O- LATE BANGSHI DHAR KALITA R/O- VILL- AND P.O- ARJUNGURI P.S SIVASAGAR DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCES DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER ASSAM WATER RESOURCES DEPTT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 3 DIST- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 3:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER ASSAM UPPER ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3 WATER RESOURCES ZONE DIBRUGARH DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM 4:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER SIVASAGAR WATER RESOURCES CIRCLE SIVASAGAR DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SIVASAGAR WATER RESOURCES DIVISION SIVASAGAR DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 6:M/S ALI BROTHERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING REGD OFFICE AT DHAI ALI NEAR BONIABARI MOSZID SIVASAGAR DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN- 785640 REP. ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MD. MOTLIB ALI DHAI-ALI NEAR BONIABARI MOSZID SIVASAGAR DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN- 785640 ------------ For the Petitioner(s) : None appears
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Tinglung, Standing Counsel Mr. S.K. Talukdar, Advocate
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 15.12.2025
None appears on behalf of the petitioners on call.
Page No.# 3/3
2. Ms. Tinglung, the learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department submitted that the instant writ petition has already become infructuous, in view of the fact that the contract in question was for the period 2016–17 and nothing further remains to be adjudicated upon in the instant proceedings.
3. Taking into account the above, it appears that the petitioners have lost interest in the instant proceedings.
4. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
5. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant