Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010070542022 2026:GAU-AS:6822 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2584/2022 MD. KURBAN ALI HAZARIKA S/O- MD. KUTUB ALI HAZARIKA R/O- MARABAZAR P.O- MORABAZAR P.S- AMGURI DIST- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE ASSAM URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD REP BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AMRITPUR PATH GANESHGURI GUWAHATI-06 3:THE DIBRUGARH MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN DIBRUGARH MUNICIPAL BOARD ASSAM 4:THE ATAL MISSION FOR REJUVENATION AND URBAN TRANSFORMATION (AMRUT) DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 5:THE MISSION DIRECTOR ATAL MISSION FOR REJUVENATION AND URBAN TRANSFORMATION (AMRUT) Page No.# 2/4 DISPUR GHY-06 6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIBRUGARH ASSAM 7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DIBRUGARH ASSAM 8:THE WORTHINGTON PUMPS INDIA LIMITED (WPIL) TRINITY PLAZA 3RD FLOOR 84/1A TOPSIA ROAD (SOUTH) KOLKATA-70046 WEST BENGAL 9:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER WORTHINGTON PUMPS INDIA LIMITED (WPIL) DIBRUGARH ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA, MS D DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MS T J SAHEWALLA (R-8,9),MR H K SARMA (R- 8,9),MR M SAHEWALLA (R-8,9),MD ASLAM (R-8,9),MR G N SAHEWALLA (R-8,9) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 18.05.2026 Heard Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 8 & 9 and Ms. V. Das, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 6 & 7. Page No.# 3/4 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court, seeking a direction upon the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 2,04,39,298/-, which is due to the petitioner from the respondent No. 8 on account of works carried out by the petitioner as sub-contractor of the respondent No. 8, in respect of the works done under the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4. 3. This Court has duly perused the materials on record and from a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that the dispute in question is a private dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 8 and under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the ‘public law remedy’ cannot be initiated for such resolution of disputes. 4. Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed. 5. Before parting with the records, this Court, however, observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude or prejudice the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, seeking relief against the respondent No. 8. Further to that, this Court also duly takes note of that the petitioner has been bonafidely litigating in the present proceeding, believing that this Court may entertain the instant writ petition. 6. Considering the above, this Court observes that the period from Page No.# 4/4 05.04.2022 till date, be excluded, while computing the period of limitation in preferring any claim against the respondent No. 8, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant