Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/684/2026 of BODO ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. on 23 July 2026
GAHC010024532026 2026:GAU-AS:10216 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/684/2026 BODO ALI S/O LATE JOYNAL ALI VILLAGE BHELLA, P.S. BARPETA, P.O. BHELLA DISTRICT BARPETA, ASSAM PIN 781309 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
GAHC010024532026
2026:GAU-AS:10216
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/684/2026
BODO ALI
S/O LATE JOYNAL ALI
VILLAGE BHELLA, P.S. BARPETA, P.O. BHELLA
DISTRICT BARPETA, ASSAM
PIN 781309
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF
ASSAMPWR DEPARTMENTGUWAHATI 6
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DM GEN DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 6
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
BARPETA
DISTRICT BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 781301
4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PWRD
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI 3
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWRD
BARPETA MANDIA CHENGA TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 78130
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. Ahmed, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Gogoi, AAG
Mr. S. Dutta, SC, Revenue
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
24.07.2026
Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4, & 5 and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.2.
2. The Petitioner herein has approached this Court being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent Authorities in making payment of the pending bill of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of all works being carried out by the Petitioner.
3. This Court has perused the materials on record and from a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that there is neither any work order nor any completion certificate have been issued.
There is also no acknowledgement or admission that the Petitioner had carried out any work. Under such circumstances, this is not a fit case wherein a writ can be issued for which the instant petition stands dismissed.
4. Be that as it may, the dismissal of the instant petition shall not preclude the Petitioner to approach the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction, if so advised.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant