Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010090112026 2026:GAU-AS:6813 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2581/2026 KAMAL SINGH DUGAR S/O LT. MULCHAND DUGAR R/O H/NO. 09, BYE LANE NO. 10 SOUTH SARANIA, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI- 781007, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE RUBBER BOARD AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KOTTAYAM-686009, KERALA,INDIA. 2:THE DIRECTOR P AND RD THE RUBBER BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROCESSING AND PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT KOTTAYAM- 686009 KERALA INDIA. 3:THE JOINT DIRECTOR THE RUBBER BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROCESSING AND PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT KOTTAM -686009 KERALA INDIA. 4:THE JOINT DIRECTOR (P AND QC) THE RUBBER BOARD DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND PROCESSING DIVISION KOTTAYAM-686009 INDIA. Page No.# 2/4 5:THE JOINT RUBBER PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER RUBBER BOARD ZONAL OFFICE CENTRAL BLOCK II 1ST FLOOR HOUSEFED COMPLEX BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD GUWAHATI-781006. 6:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR RUBBER BOARD ZONAL OFFICE CENTRAL BLOCK-II 1ST FLOOR HOUSEFED COMPLEX BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD GUWAHATI-781006. 7:JUNIOR ENGINEER CIVIL RUBBER BOARD ZONAL OFFICE CENTRAL BLOCK-II 1ST FLOOR HOUSEFED COMPLEX BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD GUWAHATI-781006 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. H. BURAGOHAIN, MR. C AGARWAL,MS. H BORAH,MS A DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 18.05.2026 Heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the actions on the part of the Page No.# 3/4 Rubber Board in not only rejecting the claim of the petitioner to the amount of Rs. 3,32,300.92p., but also for informing the petitioner that on the other hand, the petitioner has to pay an amount of Rs. 4,03,257/-. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the action on the part of the respondent authorities, more particularly, the Rubber Board, is arbitrary; taking into account that the risk and cost, which is sought to be imposed upon the petitioner, has been done at a much belated stage and therefore, the actions on the part of the said Rubber Board is not fair. 4. This Court has duly taken note of the aforesaid aspect and is of the opinion that the instant dispute is purely a dispute of civil nature. The question as to whether, the respondent Rubber Board would be entitled to recover any amount from the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 4,03,257/- or for that matter, whether the risk and cost could have been imposed upon the petitioner after a long lapse of time, as has been contended by the petitioner; are questions of facts, which are required to be agitated before a Court of competent jurisdiction, wherein, evidence can be led. Apart from the above, the question of damages are to be ascertained before the appropriate forum, rather than initiating a public law remedy. 5. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, for which, this writ petition stands dismissed. 6. Before parting with the record, this Court, however, observes that Page No.# 4/4 the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude or prejudice of the petitioner to approach the competent Court of jurisdiction, if so otherwise permissible under law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant