Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010277062025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/46/2026 FEROZ AHMED LASKAR SON OF LATE MUSLIM UDDIN LASKAR, VILL.- BERENGA PT.IV, BETHUKANDI, P.O.-RANGIRKHARI, P.S.- SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003. 3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS) CACHAR CIRCLE SILCHAR ASSAM. 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (RURAL ROADS) SILCHAR DIVISION CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N H BARBHUIYA, MS. N.A. LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, MS. S. DEY Page No.# 2/2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 07.01.2026 Heard Shri NH Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PWD. The writ petition has been filed for a direction for release of contractual dues of Rs.3,02,162/-. It however transpires that the work in question pertains to two works which were executed in the year 2006. The learned counsel has submitted that very recently, vide a communication dated 10.09.2025, the liability has been acknowledged. Shri Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel has however submitted that the communication dated 10.09.2025 cannot be deemed to be an acknowledgment, it is only the statement of payments made. This Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a Court of Equity wherein the conduct of the petitioner is of paramount importance. Approaching this Court after a gap of almost two decades itself would show that the petitioner is not entitled to any equitable relief. In any case, the matter involves question of fact which cannot be gone into by a Writ Court. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant