Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/5261/2026 of M/S M H CONSTRUCTION Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS on 27 September 2026
GAHC010170882026 2026:GAU-AS:14436 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5261/2026 M/S M H CONSTRUCTION HAVING ITS OFFICE AT WARD NO. 20 GROUND FLOORGAYATRI PLAZA ABC GS ROAD GUWAHATI 781005, DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO ASSAM,
GAHC010170882026
2026:GAU-AS:14436
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5261/2026
M/S M H CONSTRUCTION
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT WARD NO. 20 GROUND FLOORGAYATRI PLAZA
ABC GS ROAD GUWAHATI 781005, DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI RAKESH AGARWAL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PHE (WATER)
ASSAM
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO
3:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING (PHE)
LOWER ASSAM ZONE
BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PHE
BARPETA DIVISION
DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM
5:THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
DISPUR GUWAHATI
DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO ASSA
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Bora, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Nayak, Addl. A.G.
Mr. R.R. Gogoi, 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 : 28.09.2026
Mr. R. Bora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there are certain disputed questions of fact which would require adjudication by the Civil Court and as such, the petitioner would be well advised to approach the Civil Court. The learned counsel, however, submitted that the withdrawal of the instant writ petition should not prejudice the petitioner in approaching the competent Court of civil jurisdiction.
2. Considering the above, the instant writ petition stands closed on withdrawal.
3. It is, however, observed that the withdrawal of the instant writ petition shall not prejudice the petitioner in any further proceedings, if so advised. It is also observed that any future proceedings shall be subject to being permissible under law.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant