Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2657/2025 of ANJU DEKA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 OTHERS on 14 May 2026
GAHC010100172025 2026:GAU-AS:6783 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2657/2025 ANJU DEKA D/O- LATE PRAFULLA DEKA, VILL- JAHA, P.O- PUB BALAKUCHI, MUKALMUA, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 OTHERS REP BY THE
GAHC010100172025
2026:GAU-AS:6783
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2657/2025
ANJU DEKA
D/O- LATE PRAFULLA DEKA,
VILL- JAHA,
P.O- PUB BALAKUCHI, MUKALMUA, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 OTHERS
REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, HOME AND
POLITICAL DEPARTMENT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781335
3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD (BUILDING DIVISION) NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781335
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
BARKHETRI REVENUE CIRCLE
NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-78131
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. S Hoque
Advocate for the respondent(s):Mr. B Gogoi, Addl. AG, Assam &
Standing Counsel, PWD
B E F O R E
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.
ORDER
15.05.2026
Heard Mr. S Hoque, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. B Gogoi, the learned Addl. AG, Assam who appears on behalf of the PWD being the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming an amount of Rs.58,21,553/- from the respondent authorities on the ground that the petitioner has completed various works and was, therefore, entitled to the said amount.
3. This Court has perused the entire writ petition and there is not a single document issued by the PWD authorities whereby the petitioner has been shown to have been issued any work order. There is also nothing on record that the PWD authorities or the other respondent authorities have acknowledged that the petitioner had carried out any work.
4. On these materials alone, it is the opinion of this Court that no writ can be issued.
5. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed.
6. Before proceeding with the records, this Court observes that the dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude or prejudice the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum, if so permissible under the law.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant