Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/5165/2026 of MANTU KUMAR BHUYAN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS on 6 October 2026
GAHC010199652026 2026:GAU-AS:15114 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5165/2026 MANTU KUMAR BHUYAN SON OF LATE PHULESWAR BHUYAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHEMAJI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF
GAHC010199652026
2026:GAU-AS:15114
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5165/2026
MANTU KUMAR BHUYAN
SON OF LATE PHULESWAR BHUYAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHEMAJI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
DHEMAJI
ASSAM
2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-3.
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
BASISHTHA
GUWAHATI-29.
4:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
LAKHIMPUR WATER RESOURCES CIRCLE
NORTH LAKHIMPUR
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
DHEMAJI W.R. DIVISION
DHEMAJI
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Jain, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Talukdar, Govt. Advocate Ms. R. Deka, Standing Counsel BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
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 : 07.10.2026
Heard Mr. D.K. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R. Talukdar, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the State and Ms. R. Deka, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Water Resources Department.
2. From a perusal of the writ petition, there is nothing mentioned as to when the work order was issued. The work order, the completion certificate and the details of the amount paid in the meantime have not been enclosed with the writ petition. Under such circumstances, the writ petition, on the face of it, is not maintainable.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the instant writ petition with liberty to re-file the same by providing the necessary details.
4. Considering the above, the writ petition, therefore, stands closed on withdrawal.
5. Liberty, however, is given to the petitioner to re-file the writ petition by providing the necessary details, i.e., by including in the writ petition the work order, the completion certificate and the details of the amount paid in the meantime.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant