Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010045822020 2025:GAU-AS:85 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1528/2020 SHYAMAL KUMAR NANDI S/O- LT. BALARAM NANDI, R/O- HAFLONG MAIN ROAD, P.O. HAFLONG, DIST.- DIMA HASAO, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6 2:DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (A) ASSAM GHY-7 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DIMA HASAO HALFLONG Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J LASKAR, MR A BASUMATARY Advocate for the Respondent : SR. GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 06-01-2025 No one appears for the petitioner on call. 2. Mr. SS Roy, learned counsel appears for all the respondents. 3. The matter pertains to a claim for non payment of contractual bills amounting to Rs.9,28,283/-, for carrying out some civil works of emergency nature, in view of the Assembly Election held in the State of Assam in the year 2011. 4. The affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 on 03.01.2022 states that the petitioner has not submitted any valid document, to show that he has received any work order to execute the work. Further he failed to produce any document to show that he had executed the work. There is no endorsement from any authority to validate the work that has allegedly been done by the petitioner. Further, the mere receiving of the petitioner’s bill did not mean that the petitioner had executed the work, inasmuch as, there is no document to show that the petitioner was requested to execute the work. With regard to the RTI reply relied upon by the petitioner, to prove that he had been given contract work by the State respondents, para 11 of the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 states as follows:- “That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, the answering deponent states that after verification of official records lying in the office, there is no such document to validate the work done by the petitioner. Mere endorsement of the Page No.# 3/4 Addl. Superintendent of Police (Head Quarter), Dima Hasao does not suffice the fact that the petitioner has done the work. In fact, there does not appear to be any connected papers present in the RTI file or office of the Superintendent of Police, Dima Hasao suggesting any such work or material supply was indeed done in accordance with laid down procedure. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has not provided the deponent with any of the earlier petition made to the office of the deponent whereby he has shown his tender papers or even the work order. As to under what process or procedure as a registered contractor, the petitioner has done the work or supplied material is best known to him. The connected documents on the basis of which RTI reply has been given by the PIO can at most suggest that a bill as received in regular Dak is present in this office, but no other documents on the basis of which amount as stated in bills can be processed for payment is present in the office of the deponent. So, there is an element of slight error that has crept in the RTI reply furnished by the then Addl. Superintendent of police (HQ)-cum- PIO, Dima Hasao, Haflong. There are in fact no papers and documents based on which the claim of the petitioner can be verified and processed. Furthermore, as per the RTI reply dated 08.09.2017, itself, there is no live cause of action in the present case as it is barred by limitation in view of the Article 18 of the Limitation Act 1963. At the very least, the petitioner is guilty of laches as stated above.” 5. The above affidavit of the respondent No. 3 indicates that there are disputed questions of facts, which cannot be decided in this writ petition. Page No.# 4/4 However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has not appeared today, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant