Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010228482025 2026:GAU-AS:4280-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3317/2025 SRI MAHESH DEKA S/O- SRI. DANDIRAM DEKA, R/O- H.NO. 13, K.K.BHATTA ROAD, CHENIKUTHI, GUWAHATI- 781003 ASSAM VERSUS 1: THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006. 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI 78100 For the Applicant(s) : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. V. Rajkhowa, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Saikia, Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. D. Nath, Senior Government Advocate, Assam and Ms. P. Barua, Advocate. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 25.03.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) The afore-noted Interlocutory Application has been filed, bringing Page No.# 2/6 to the notice of this Court that the promise made by the State respondents in the affidavit filed in the connected/disposed off PIL No.64/2024 has not been kept. 2. It would be relevant here to state that while an elevated corridor/flyover on GNB Road from RBI Office, Ambari to FCI Godown, Noonmati was under construction, the afore-noted PIL was filed, bringing to the notice of the Court that with the alignments proposed, many of the aged/matured trees would be required to be felled, which would cause damage to the already fragile eco-system of the area. 3. It appears that the Court took up the matter in right earnest but on an affidavit promising change in the alignment to prevent any damage to the trees filed on behalf of the State, which we will be reproducing herein for the sake of clarity, the matter was rested, giving liberty to the writ petitioner or any other vigilant citizen to point out any breach of such promise or any attempt of the State in not adhering to the promise made to the Court, by way of any appropriate proceedings. The relevant portion of the affidavit filed on behalf of the State in PIL No.64/2024 is extracted herein below:- “The deponent states that matter was taken up at the highest level and accordingly, on 5.11.2024 the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Assam has announced about realignment of the proposed Flyover without affecting the two sides of Dighalipukhuri pond and the trees standing therein. As per the proposal, the design of the Flyover has been modified and now one side of the bridge will start from Lamb Road point at GNB Road and the other side will start at GNB Road near Rabindra Bhawan point resulting both the banks of the Dighalipukhuri and trees will not be affected in any manner whatsoever. The realignment of the flyover has been decided, and, necessary survey and preparatory works are going on for the new design Page No.# 3/6 and the same is not yet finalized. It is pertinent to reiterate in most categorical terms that not a single tree on the bank of Dighalipukhuri will be affected under the modified design of alignment of the proposed Flyover in question.” 4. There is no dispute about the fact that the flyover has been constructed and has been thrown open to the public. The allegation of the applicant/ petitioner here is that the promise of keeping the flyover from Lamb Road Point to Rabindra Bhawan has not been followed. One extremity of the flyover though starts at Lamb Road but the other extremity goes 550 feets beyond Rabindra Bhawan. 5. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant/petitioner submits that at the moment, there is no prayer for making any alteration in the already constructed flyover but the present application is only for highlighting that in no case can an affidavit be filed by any responsible agency, including the State, which will not be respected in future or which projects a different scenario and based on such affidavit, if any order is passed, it must be complied with in its entirety and not only in its spirits. 6. The undisputed position today is that with the two extremities at Lamb Road and somewhere near the Assam State Museum, respectively, no trees have been felled and there is no obstruction to any private or commercial establishment, if at all they exist at either side of the road. 7. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam, while responding to this affidavit, submitted that it was at the time of proposed re-alignment of the two wings of the flyover that an assurance was given Page No.# 4/6 before the Court that one end of the flyover would be at Lamb Road and the other would be near the Rabindra Bhawan. He has further submitted that Rabindra Bhawan and the Assam State Museum are adjacently located and even if the other extremity of the flyover extends a little beyond the State Museum, it would still fall within the promised range. 8. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate, however, submits that the purpose of filing this affidavit is only to ensure that no loose statement is made in the affidavit, which would have the potency of deflecting the course of the order passed by a Court of law and if at all the expression “near” were to be understood in this manner, then, perhaps, the correct expression would have been that the other extremity would somewhere around the Assam State Museum. 9. We find that such criticism about the correctness of the undertaking by way of an affidavit on behalf of the State is unfounded and it ought not to be considered seriously. We have taken notice of the fact that the other extremity of the flyover is about 550 feets away from Rabindra Bhawan which could still be called near Rabindra Bhawan. What makes us not look at the breach of any promise, if at all it has been made, is also the fact that no trees have been felled in the process and that there could be some technical reason(s) for extension of the other extremity, like providing a softer gradient/landing point. 10. While commenting on the affidavit where a ballpark assessment was given which either should have been more specific or if at all a Page No.# 5/6 benchmark was suggested, that should have been respected, Mr. Choudhury has pointed out the observations of the Supreme Court in suo motu proceedings against R. Karuppan, Advocate -Vs- Union of India :: (2001) 5 SCC 289, wherein it was observed that sanctity of affidavits are required to be preserved and protected, discouraging the filing of irresponsible statements without any regard to accuracy. He has also referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sciemed Overseas Inc. -Vs- BOC India Limited & Ors. :: (2016) 3 SCC 70 and Muthu Karuppan -Vs- Parithi Ilamvazhuthi & Anr. :: (2011) 5 SCC 496, wherein a view was expressed that the filing of a false affidavit should be curbed with a strong hand to ensure and preserve the purity of judicial proceedings. However, after having said that, the Supreme Court also cautioned that for an affidavit to be treated as false, there must be a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood. 11. It cannot be lost sight of that before the alignments were revisited, a statement was made on behalf of the State that to avoid felling of trees, the alignments shall be changed and with the new proposed alignment, the two extremities would be at Rabindra Bhawan and Lamb Road. It was at the time when the real alignment had not been finally worked out by the Engineers carrying out the Project. If this extended extremity is understood in the afore-noted fact scenario, this Court fails to understand as to how the affidavit filed in PIL No.64/2024 was false, misleading or had the potency of misleading the Court into resting the petition with no further action. 12. After having observed that, we, taking into account that the Page No.# 6/6 flyover has already been constructed and thrown open to the public at large and no trees having been felled in the process, close this Interlocutory Application. 13. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed off accordingly. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant