Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4577/2026 of BRAJEN BARMAN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS on 30 August 2026
GAHC010178642026 2026:GAU-AS:12613 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4577/2026 BRAJEN BARMAN S/O- DASARATH BARMAN, VILLAGE- BELSOR, P.S. BELSOR, DISTRICT - NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN -781304. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
GAHC010178642026
2026:GAU-AS:12613
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4577/2026
BRAJEN BARMAN
S/O- DASARATH BARMAN, VILLAGE- BELSOR, P.S. BELSOR, DISTRICT - NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN -781304.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 6.
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI - 6.
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION (MI)
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI -6.
4:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER
INSPECTION AND QUALITY CONTROL
IRRIGATION
GUWAHATI-3.
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DHARAMPUR- BARKHETRI- NALBARI DIVISION
IRRIGATION
NALBARI
ASSA
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. T. Som, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Upadhyay, SC, Irrigation
BEFORE
HON’BLE 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.
O R D E R
31.08.2026
Heard Ms. T. Som, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. N. Upadhyay, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Irrigation Department.
2. The grievance of the Petitioner herein is that there has been inaction and non-implementation of the construction of Solmara (Sukekuchi) DTWIS under SCSP for the year 2020-2021 in terms with the administrative approval granted on 26.02.2021.
3. Ms. T. Som, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that though the work was to be carried out within the confines of the village wherein the Petitioner resides, but the work was carried out 3 kms. away from the Petitioner's village.
4. Mr. N. Upadhyay, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Irrigation Department submitted that the work in question was completed as far back on 29.04.2023, and therefore, the question does not arise for this Court now to direct the Respondent Authorities to shift the work which has been completed to the Petitioner's village. He further submitted that the Petitioner would be well advised to approach the concerned Authorities.
5. Taking into account the above and more particularly having perused the completion certificate, this Court is of the opinion that no case has been made out for issuance of a notice in the present proceedings.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
7. Before parting with the record, this Court, however, observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not prejudice the Petitioner to submit a representation before the Respondent Authorities seeking similar works to be carried out within the village of the Petitioner.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant