Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010034812023 2025:GAU-AS:14037 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/996/2023 ANWAR HUSSAIN S/O AINUL HAQUE, R/O MIRZA NEW COLONEY, P.S.-PALASBARI, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 3:HE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT (PREVIOUSLY DEPARTMENT OF FLOOD CONTROL GUWAHATI 3 GOVT. OF ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 4:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 5:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI EAST W.R. DIVISION GUWAHATI- Page No.# 2/4 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Jain, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. G. Bokolial, Government Advocate Mr. P. Saikia, Standing Counsel BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 22.10.2025 Heard Mr. D.K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. G. Bokolial, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Mr. P. Saikia, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Water Resources Department of the Government of Assam. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking direction for payment of an amount of Rs. 5,24,241/- due to him on account of various works being completed. 3. From a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner has not enclosed any work order or any other documents which would show that the petitioner is entitled to the said amount except information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 which the petitioner received on 04.11.2022. From a perusal of the information given under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it is seen that the work orders in Page No.# 3/4 question pertains to the year 2012. However, the petitioner has approached this Court only in the year 2023 i.e. after a period of more than 11 years. No reasons whatsoever has been assigned, as to why, the petitioner has slept over his rights. This Court has also taken note of the affidavit-in-opposition wherein the respondents have categorically taken the plea that the petitioner’s work orders were of the year 2012 and the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2023. In addition to that, the respondents have also denied the statement on the basis of which the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition and as per the respondents, the amount to which the petitioner is entitled to is only Rs. 34,241/-. 4. Taking into account above, this Court is of the opinion that the instant writ petition is not a fit case for exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for which, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 5. Before parting with the record, this Court, however, observes that the petitioner can approach the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction, if otherwise permissible under law and in the circumstance, the petitioner approaches, the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not prejudice the petitioner. 6. The period from which the instant writ petition has been Page No.# 4/4 pending i.e. from 15.02.2023 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation. JUDGE Comparing Assistant