Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/168/2026 of Smti Taba Mama Yowa Vs The State of AP and 4 Ors on 9 April 2026
GAHC040005282026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/168/2026 Smti Taba Mama Yowa Wife of Shri Yowa Bullet, permanent resident of Balijan, PO and PS Balijan, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The
GAHC040005282026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : WP(C)/168/2026
Smti Taba Mama Yowa
Wife of Shri Yowa Bullet, permanent resident of Balijan, PO and PS Balijan, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.
VERSUS
The State of AP and 4 Ors
represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh.
2:The Executive
Engineer
Age: 0
Occupation :
Public Work Department
Doimukh Division
Papum Pare District
Arunachal Pradesh.
3:The Director Planning
Age: 0
Occupation :
Department of Finance
Planning and Investment
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
Civil Secretariat
Itanagar
Papum Pare District
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh.
4:The Secretary Civil Aviation
Age: 0
Occupation :
Department of Civil Aviation
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
Itanagar.
5:The Chief Engineer (SID and P)
Age: 0
Occupation :
Public Works Department
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
Itanagar
Papum Pare District
Arunachal Pradesh
Advocate for the Petitioner : Taba Topu, Likha Kagung,Tajoy Eru,Tem Pahi,Tokdak Tamin Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 10.04.2026 Heard Mr. T. Topu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Y. Riram, learned State Counsel for the State respondents.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has essentially prayed for disposal of the representation pertaining to his claim for payment of the outstanding amount on account of the work executed for permanent restoration of the 4- lane approach road to Donyi Polo Airport, Hollongi, on the basis of the work order issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Doimukh Division, dated 04.04.2025.
3. Having considered the simple prayer and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself.
4. The petitioner is a registered contractor who executed civil works in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The Executive Engineer, PWD, Doimukh Division, vide work order dated 04.04.2025, awarded the work to the petitioner for urgent construction for permanent restoration of the 4-lane approach road to Donyi Polo Airport, Hollongi. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner completed the maintenance work for permanent restoration of the said approach road. However, despite several approaches, the respondent authorities have failed to clear the bill amount.
5. Mr. T. Topu, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the various communications of the Departments as well as the representations filed by the petitioner dated 11.03.2026 and 25.03.2026, submits that there is no dispute as regards execution of the maintenance work for restoration of the 4- lane approach road by the petitioner. The respondent authorities are duty-bound to release the payment upon execution of the said work. Therefore, he submits that an appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to release the payment to the petitioner.
6. Mr. Riram, learned State Counsel, fairly submits that since the petitioner has submitted representations, the authorities may be directed to dispose of the same.
7. Having considered the simple prayer made in this writ petition and also considering that the petitioner appears to have executed the work pursuant to the work order issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Doimukh Division, dated 04.04.2025, as well as, as agreed to by the parties, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner within a stipulated time period.
8. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 25.03.2026 and pass an appropriate order thereon within a period of 30(thirty) days from today. In the event the petitioner is found to have executed the work pursuant to the work order dated 04.04.2025, issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Doimukh Division, and is found entitled to payment, the same shall be released within a further period of 30 (thirty) days thereafter.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant