Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 6 August, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010164692025
2025:GAU-AS:10344
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4422/2025
MD. MUSTAFA KAMAL ALIAS MUSTAFA KAMAL
S/O- LATE SHAHID ALI, VILL. NO. 2 KANDHULIMARI, P.O.
KANDHULIMARI, P.S. DHING, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782001.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF JAL SHAKTI (LIT) MINISTRY OF
WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, E-
GOVERNANCE CELL, 6TH FLOOR CABIN, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI
MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
BASISTHA
GUWAHATI-29.
4:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
NAGAON WATER RESOURCE CIRCLE
NAGAON.
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
MORIGAON WATER RESOURCE DIVISION
MORIGAON
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Ms. A Begum
Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. P Seyie
Date of hearing & judgment: 06.08.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Heard Ms. A Begum, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner. Ms. P Seyie, the learned counsel who appears on behalf
of the respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5. As regards the respondent No.1
none has appeared, when the matter was called upon.
2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of
the respondent authorities in not making payment of an amount of
Rs.11,77,835/- to which, the petitioner claims to be entitled to. It is
noticed from the materials on record that the petitioner claims that
the respondents had issued 3(three) work orders on 02.05.2012 and
the respondent No.5 had issued 3(three) work orders on 17.09.2012.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had carried out
the said works, but only certain amounts had been paid in the year
Page No.# 3/4
2014. It is the further case of the petitioner that upon making an
application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 the petitioner
could learn that a further amount of Rs.11,77,835/- is payable to the
petitioner.
4. This Court had duly perused the writ petition and do not find that
the petitioner had at all represented before the respondent
authorities. It is a settled principle of law that for seeking a
mandamus, the petitioner has to first approach the respondent
authorities.
5. This Court further takes note of that the amount which was
payable to the petitioner was sometime in the year 2013-14 and
thereupon the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2025.
There is no reasons assigned for the delay. This Court also cannot
turn a blind eye to the aspect that a delayed claim of 12/13 years if
filed, the respondents would not have records which would prejudice
their defence.
6. In view of the above, on account of delay and laches as well as
the manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court, it is the
opinion of this Court that it is not a fit case to exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition
stands dismissed.
7. Before parting with the records, this Court observes that the
Page No.# 4/4
dismissal of the writ petition shall not prejudice the writ petitioner to
avail other remedies, if so, permissible under the law.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
