Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010120122019 2026:GAU-AS:5419 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3706/2019 M/S. R.P. TECHNO AND ENGINEERS AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI RANJIT DUTTA, SON OF LATE DEBANANDA DUTTA, RESIDENT OF JONAKI NAGAR, P.O. DHULIAPARA, PS. AND DIST.- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN- 785640. 2: M/S. PRADIP KR. DUTTA REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI PRADIP KR. DUTTA SON OF LATE DEBANANDA DUTTA RESIDENT OF JONAKI NAGAR P.O. DHULIAPARA P.S. AND DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN- 785640. 3: M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MRS. MOUSUMEE SAIKIA DUTTA RESIDENT OF JONAKI NAGAR P.O. DHULIAPAR SIVASAGAR DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN- 785640 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAVAN-1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED 3RD FLOOR PTI BUILDING Page No.# 2/5 4- PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI- 110001. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS (HIGHWAY) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 4:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (P) REGIONAL OFFICE NHIDCL 2ND FLOOR AGNISHANTI BUSINESS PARK OPP. AGP OFFICE G.N.B. ROAD AMBARI GUWAHATI-1. 5:M/S CORSAN CORVIAM CONSTRUCTION S.A. HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT CABBALLERO ANDNTE 8-28021 MAIDRID SPAIN AND REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS AND HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR SPLENDOR TOWER SECTOR-88 GURGAON HARYANA-122018 6:THE PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR/ DIRECTOR M/S. GARDENIA INFRA LLP R-19 3RD FLOOR MAIN SHAKARPUR MARKET VIKAS MARG DELHI- 110092. 7:THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH BETKUCHI OPP. BALAJI TEMPLE NH-37 P.O. GORCHUK DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI-35 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Gogoi, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. C. Baruah, Standing Counsel Page No.# 3/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 20.04.2026 Heard Mr. P.K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. C. Baruah, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. 2. None appears on behalf of the other respondents on call. 3. The petitioners herein have filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondent Nos. 2 and 6 to make payment of the outstanding bill amount of Rs. 30,06,828/-. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 6 was allotted a work by the NHIDCL. It is claimed by the petitioners that the respondent No. 6 thereupon gave a sub-contract to the petitioners by entering into an agreement dated 01.06.2017 for supply of excavator, power generator, power board, welding rectifier, fabrication work, etc., and for construction of the four- laning of the Jhanji to Demow section of NH-37 from KM 520 & KM 530 in the State of Assam. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had submitted bills to the respondent No. 6 to the tune of Rs. 34,44,241/-, out of which only an amount of Rs. 4,37,403/- was paid. Further to that, the amount of Rs. Page No.# 4/5 30,06,828/- is stated to be due and payable by the respondent No. 6. It is on account of non-payment of the said amount, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondent Nos. 2 and 6 for payment of the dues. 4. From a perusal of the materials on record, there is nothing which would show that the respondent Nos. 2 or 4 had any privity of contract with the petitioners. 5. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 wherein it is categorically stated at paragraph No. 4 that the respondent No. 6 is not an approved contractor/sub- contractor of the NHIDCL and that the NHIDCL is liable to make payment only against the executed works to the EPC contractor as per the provisions of the agreement signed between the NHIDCL and the EPC contractor, i.e., the respondent No. 5. It is also mentioned that if the respondent No. 5 had engaged the respondent No. 6, the NHIDCL was neither aware of the same nor has any liability towards the respondent No. 6. To the said affidavit-in-opposition, the contract document executed between the NHIDCL and the respondent No. 5 has also been enclosed. 6. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the petitioners to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 4. However, nothing could be shown therein that the petitioners Page No.# 5/5 had any contract with the NHIDCL to claim the said amount. 7. The above materials on record clearly show that the dispute (if any) is purely a private dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No. 6. Such disputes cannot be adjudicated by way of a public law remedy, that too when the respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 4 have no contractual obligations with the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to entertain the instant writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. 9. Before parting with the record, this Court observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude the petitioners from approaching the competent Court of civil jurisdiction, if so advised, claiming any dues against the respondent No. 6. JUDGE Comparing Assistant