Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2965/2023 of M/S DMS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS on 11 June 2026
GAHC010111302023 2026:GAU-AS:8438 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2965/2023 M/S DMS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI TATUL TALUKDAR, AGED 32 YEARS, SON OF LATE UDHAB TALUKDAR, VILL. AND
GAHC010111302023
2026:GAU-AS:8438
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2965/2023
M/S DMS
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS
SRI TATUL TALUKDAR,
AGED 32 YEARS,
SON OF LATE UDHAB TALUKDAR,
VILL. AND P.O.- BAMAKHATA,
BAJALI, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 783370.
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BAKSA DISTRICT
MUSHALPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 781373
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. De, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Gogoi, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate Ms. N. Choudhury, 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 : 12.06.2026
Heard Mr. R. De, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Ms. N. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2.
2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court claiming an amount of Rs. 29,88,200/- along with interest at the rate of 18% which according to the petitioner was not paid by the Respondent Authorities in spite of the petitioner carrying out the supply orders.
3. This Court duly takes note of the affidavit which was filed by the respondent No. 3, wherein it is categorically mentioned that a bill of Rs. 37,18,250/- was found in the file as regards the supply made by the petitioner and out of the said amount, Rs. 12,88,650/- was the amount approved by the authorities, and the said amount was duly paid to the petitioner firm on
05.03.2021. The said affidavit further mentions the reasons as to why the payment was less to what was claimed, on the ground of quality of the items defective items, etc.
4. It is the opinion of this Court that as to whether the petitioner had supplied items which were of good quality or the petitioner had supplied defective items, etc., are questions of facts which need to be adjudicated in a forum wherein evidence can be led. The Writ Court would not be the appropriate forum.
5. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition inasmuch as disputed questions of facts arise. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed.
6. However, it is the opinion of this Court that taking into account that the petitioner has been relegated to the competent Court of civil jurisdiction, the period during which the instant writ petition has been pending ought to be excluded while computing the period of limitation. Accordingly, the period from 22.05.2023 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant