Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010065882025 2025:GAU-AS:10289 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1832/2025 BHABA KANTA NATH S/O- LATE SUNDER NATH, R/O- 243 SURAVI PATH, NEAR DPI, KAHILIPARA ROAD, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GUWAHATI DEVELOPMENT DEPTT, 4TH FLOOR, BLOCK D, ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781005 2:GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER SECOND FLOOR T AND CP BUILDING DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SECOND FLOOR T AND CP BUILDING DISPUR GUWAHATI-78100 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Pator, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Bora, Standing Counsel Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 05.08.2025 Heard Mr. A. Pator, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent Authorities in not making payment of the bill dated 22.03.2022 for the services provided by the petitioner for the period from 01.07.2021 to 31.07.2021. It is further seen from the records that the petitioner claimed that the petitioner was asked to carry out certain works verbally by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the petitioner duly performed the works. However, the payments have not been made. 3. The materials on record do not show what amount the petitioner actually claims. Further, there is also no admission on the part of the Respondent Authorities that the petitioner have carried out any work, save and except, certain documents provided to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 4. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials on Page No.# 3/3 record. This Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in absence of any work order being issued to the petitioner and nothing on record to show that the petitioner having done the work, the same was recognized by the Respondent Authorities. 5. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, for which, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 6. Be that as it may, this Court however observes that the petitioner herein, if so advised, would be at liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court seeking recovery of the amounts from the Respondent Authorities and the filing of the instant writ petition shall be deemed to be a notice to the Respondent Corporation in terms with Gauhati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, if the petitioner files a suit seeking recovery of money. 7. The period during which the instant writ petition was pending i.e. from 25.03.2025 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation. JUDGE Comparing Assistant