Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010045212025 2025:GAU-AS:12632 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1332/2025 SATYABRATA DEY S/O- SATENDRA KR. DEY, R/O- WARD NO. 4, LANKA TOWN, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN- 782446. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 11 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HOJAI SRIMANTA SANKARDEV NAGAR ASSAM 4:CHAIRMAN LANKA MUNICIPAL BOARD LANKA P.O. LANKA DIST.- HOJAI ASSAM 5:EXECUTIVE OFFICER LANKA MUNICIPAL BOARD LANKA. Page No.# 2/4 6:KARBI ANGLONG DISTRICT COUNCIL DIPHU REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KARBI ANGLONG DISTRICT COUNCIL. 7:CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU. 8:DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER KARBI ANGLONG EAST DIVISION DIPHU. 9:ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST KARBI ANGLONG EAST DIVISION DIPHU. 10:RANGE FOREST OFFICER WESTERN RANGE DOKMOKA KARBI ANGLONG PIN- 782441. 11:DEPUTY RANGER WESTERN RANGE DOKMOKA KARBI ANGLONG PIN- 782441. 12:CHABI TAPADAR W/O- BISWAJIT TAPADAR W/NO. 1 LANKA TOWN P.O. LANKA DIST. HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782446 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. H. Mazarbhuiyan, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Nath, Sr. Government Advocate : Ms. S. Kemprai, Standing Counsel Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 15.09.2025 Heard Mr. N. H. Mazarbhuiyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Lanka Municipal Board. I have also heard Mr. D. K. Agarwal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.12 and Ms. S. Kemprai, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council. 2. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by granting of the settlement order in favour of the Respondent No.12 by the Lanka Municipal Board dated 27.05.2022 and has also further sought for a criminal investigation for certain conducts of the Respondent Authorities. 3. Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Lanka Municipal Board submitted that the work order in respect to which the Petitioner is assailing in the year 2025 was awarded to the Respondent No.12 in the year 2022 and thereupon, all supply have been completed. The learned Senior Government submitted that the Petitioner has approached this Court with vested interest. 4. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties. 5. This Court enquired with Mr. N. H. Mazarbhuiyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner as to whether the Petitioner has filed any FIR before the appropriate authority taking into account that the Petitioner seeks a criminal investigation in respect certain allegations. The learned counsel with all his fairness submitted that no Page No.# 4/4 FIR has been filed. 6. It is relevant to observe that vide the order dated 27.05.2022, the Respondent No.12 was awarded the contract for supply of various sand gravels and that has been already completed as far back as in the year 2023. 7. Taking into account the above, nothing survives in the present writ petition insofar as the relief sought for cancelling or setting aside the settlement order or awarding the said contract to the Petitioner. Under such circumstances, the said relief cannot be granted. 8. Insofar as the criminal investigation which the Petitioner is seeking, it is relevant to observe that the Petitioner has not even filed any FIR. What the Petitioner has done is that he has submitted a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai on 21.11.2024. 9. Taking into account that the Petitioner has not approached the appropriate authority or had filed any FIR, the question of issuance of any directions for a criminal investigation is not warranted in the present proceedings for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 10. Be that as it may, this Court observes that the Petitioner would always be at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate provisions of law, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant