Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010096092023 2026:GAU-AS:6781 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2755/2023 PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE NANDALAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF TIRAP GATE, PO- TIRAP DIST- TINSUKIA , PIN - 786182 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF COMMISSIONER AD SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PWRD, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006, ASSAM. 2:CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (BORDER ROAD AND NEC) CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 781003. 3:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD DIGBOI AND MARGHERITA TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION MARGHERITA ASSAM. 4:THE STATE QUALITY CO-ORDINATOR PMGSY ASSAM CUM STATE ITNO ASSAM PMGSY (CELL) O/O THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD(ROAD) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 78100 Page No.# 2/3 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. K. Ghosh, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Gogoi, Addl. AG, Assam BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 15.05.2026 Heard Mr. S. K. Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General who is also the Standing counsel of the PWD appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner herein is that the Respondent Authorities have not uploaded his name pursuant to the death of his father in terms with Clause 55.2 of the General Clauses of the Contract and resultantly, the Petitioner has not been able to upload his current bills in E-Marg portal so that the Petitioner can get his pending bills for the work. 3. Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel for the PWD submitted that the uploading was done in month of June, 2023 and as such the writ petition has become infructuous. 4. Mr. S. K. Ghosh, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that though the Petitioner’s name has been uploaded Page No.# 3/3 in the E-Marg portal but on account of not being uploaded at that relevant point of time, the Petitioner could not submit the bills and those bills which had been submitted subsequent thereto are still pending. 5. Taking into account the relief which have been sought for, it is the opinion of this Court that the instant writ petition has become infructuous. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed. 7. Before parting with the records, this Court observes that if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the non-payment of the bills after being uploaded, the closure of the writ petition as infructuous shall not prejudice or preclude the Petitioner to avail appropriate remedies. JUDGE Comparing Assistant