Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010049592023 2025:GAU-AS:14038 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1443/2023 NRIPEN TALUKDAR S/O- LATE PARASU RAM TALUKDAR, PROPRIETOR OF M/S ABALAS HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MRD ROAD, ANURADHA COMPLEX, BAMUNIMAIDAN, P.O. BAMUNIMAIDAN, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN- 781021. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, ASSAM 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 ASSAM 3:THE COMMISSIONER GOVT. OF ASSAM INFORMATION PUBLIC RELATION PRINTING AND STATIONARY DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 ASSAM 4:THE DIRECTOR INFORMATION Page No.# 2/3 PUBLIC RELATION PRINTING AND STATIONARY DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAN GUWAHATI-21 ASSA For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Mazumdar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. G. Bokolial, Govt. Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 22.10.2025 Heard Mr. P.K. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. G. Bokolial, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. 2. None appears on behalf of the Finance Department on call. 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that he was issued various work orders in the year 2015 and the petitioner duly submitted the bills in the year 2016. The claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled to an amount of Rs. 6,21,423/- which the respondents have not paid in spite of various representations being submitted by the petitioner on 11.01.2018, 28.03.2018, 04.01.2019 and 09.06.2022. It is under such circumstances, the instant writ petition was filed on 02.03.2023. 4. This Court has duly perused the materials on record. From a Page No.# 3/3 perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that there is no admission on the part of the Respondent Authorities regarding the entitlement of the amount as claimed by the petitioner. This Court further takes note of the settled position of law that merely filing representations one after another does not keep a cause of action alive. The entitlement of the petitioner as claimed was in the year 2016 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2023. It appears therefore that the petitioner had slept over his rights. 5. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in entertaining the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for which, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 6. Before parting with the record, this Court, however, observes that the dismissal of the present writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner to approach the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction. 7. The period during which the instant writ petition has been pending i.e. from 02.03.2023 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation. JUDGE Comparing Assistant