Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010281972025 2026:GAU-AS:6616 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/849/2026 DEEPAK BORA S/O- LATE LILARAM BORA, VILL- NAWSOLIAGAON, P.O- BORBHETA, P.S- JORHAT, DIST- JORHAT, ASSAMN, PIN-785065, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ASSAM, SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) CHANDMARI GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN-781003 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD JORHAT AND TITABOR TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION JORHAT PIN-785001 ASSA For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. J. Sarmah, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Bhuyan, SC, PWD Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 13.05.2026 Heard Mr. S. J. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. M. Bhuyan, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Authorities. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking directions for setting aside and quashing the notice/order dated 03.11.2025 and 11.11.2025 as well as further directions that the Respondents should extend the work for a further period of 6 (six) months. In addition to that, the Petitioner has also sought for a direction that the said contract which the Petitioner admittedly failed to complete, should not be re-tendered. 3. This Court has duly perused the materials on record and from a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that the Petitioner was required to complete the work within 12 (twelve) months from 20.06.2023. The Petitioner admittedly could not complete the work within the said 12 (twelve) months. It is also seen that on 03.11.2025 and 11.11.2025, cancellation notices were issued which is more than 12 (twelve) months after the Page No.# 3/3 date of completion and then also the Petitioner has not been able to complete the work. 4. Mr. M. Bhuyan, the learned Standing counsel for the Respondents submitted that to his instructions, the Petitioner has only completed 28% of the work and in that regard had placed the parawise comments which is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. 5. This Court upon perusal of the materials on record as well as the orders which have been passed by the Respondent Authorities is of the opinion that the Petitioner has failed to make out any case on merits for this Court to exercise the powers of judicial review. 6. Considering the above, this Court therefore dismisses the instant writ petition. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant