Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 18 February, 2026

Author: Soumitra Saikia

Bench: Soumitra Saikia

                                                               Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010031332026




                                                       undefined

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/870/2026

         STATE INLAND WATER TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANR
         REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SHRI ASWINI KUMAR
         BARUAH AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT I.W.T. OFFICE,
         ULUBARI, GUWAHATI- 781007.

         2: SHRI ASWINI KUMAR BARUAH
          GENERAL SECRETARY
          STATE INLAND WATER TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
         AGE- 57
          SON OF LATE JIBON CHANDRA BARUAH
          RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BEZTOLA
          P.O. P.S.- HAJO
          DISTRICT- KAMRUP RURAL
         ASSAM. PIN-781307

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
         ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

         2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY

          TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
          GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-06.

         3:THE DIRECTOR

          DIRECTORATE OF INLAND WATER TRANSPORT
          ULUBARI
          GUWAHATI-07
                                                                          Page No.# 2/6

            4:ASSAM INLAND WATERWAYS COMPANY LIMITED (AIWCL)

             REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
             IWT BUILDING
             ULUBARI
             GUWAHATI-07.

            5:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

             O/O ASSAM INLAND WATERWAYS COMPANY LIMITED
             IWT BUILDING
             ULUBARI
             GUWAHATI-07

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. M NATH, MR B S CHOWDHURY,MR. D J KAPIL,MR. A
BHATTACHARJEE

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, IWT




                                    BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

                                         ORDER

18.02.2026 Heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.J. Kapil, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Ms. M.D Borah, learned Standing Counsel for the Inland Water & Transport Department.

2. The petitioner is an association of the employees of the State Inland Water Transport. They are aggrieved by the Cabinet Memorandum dated 07.12.2025 whereby the assets, functions and functionaries of the Inland Water Transport Department have been transferred to Assam Inland Water Transport Company Limited namely respondents No. 4 & 5.

3. The grievances of the petitioners are that the members of the Union are serving under the Directorate of Inland Water Transport, Government of Assam Page No.# 3/6

in various Gazetted and Non-Gazetted posts across different cadres and categories. At present, they are employees under the Department and are governed by the service Rules applicable to them and framed by the appropriate authorities. The Government of Assam has proceeded to take its decision earlier to transfer the assets and liabilities including employees to the Assam Inland Water Transport Company Limited which came to be assailed before this Court earlier by same writ petitioners being W.P(C) No. 4538/2015. Similar writ petitions were filed by other associations or Unions or Santhas comprising of employees of the Inland Water Transport Department. All these writ petitions came to be taken up together and disposed of by Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2020. A Co-ordinate Bench by the said Judgment allowed the writ petitions with the following directions:

"15. In so far as the decision relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the respondent Department i,e. Municipal Commissioner of Dum Dum Municipality & Ors. (Supra), there is no argument to the fact that the State Government are at liberty to embark upon an extensive and systematic course of activity whereunder, several business ventures were commenced and in many cases taken over by creating Corporations for carrying out the activities. But the fact remains that the same has to be back by legislation and not merely by means of an executive action.

16. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and upon due consideration, I find merit in the writ petition. The State respondents having not come up with any legislation, the impugned Notification dated 17.07.2015 is found to be unsustainable.

Accordingly, the same is set aside. Likewise, the impugned Notification dated 02.08.2017 as well as 07.08.2017 are also set aside."

4. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that no appeal has been preferred by the State or by the respondents against the said Judgment and order. The matter being thus situated, a fresh Cabinet Memorandum was moved before the State Cabinet and which ultimately came to be approved permitting the operationalisation of the respondents No. 5- Company restructuring the Directorate of Inland Water Transport and re-

Page No.# 4/6

designation of roles and movements of assets, functions and functionaries between the Department of Inland Water Transport and the said company. The petitioners are aggrieved that by virtue of this Cabinet Memorandum, now their conditions of service are bound to the altered and as on date, it is not clear whether they would be employees of the Department governed by the service Rules or would become employees of the company which has been incorporated recently for taking over the functions of the Inland Water Transport Department and at no point in time had they given their consent to become the employees of the said company. That apart, it is submitted that the provisions of the Constitution under Article 154 read with 162 has not been complied with. Therefore, in the absence of a specific legislation by the State there cannot be transferred of assets and liabilities as also the employees of the government department to a private company. This was already declared by a Co-ordinate Bench by the earlier Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2020. Against which no appeal has been filed and therefore that the order has attained finality. Under such conditions, the action of the respondents in proceeding with Cabinet Memorandum with its approval is in conflict with the earlier decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court and the Articles of the Constitution of India. Under such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the said Cabinet Memorandum. It is also submitted that similar writ petition filed by another association is already pending before the Court being W.P(C) No. 617/2026.

5. The learned Advocate General for the State strongly objects to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. He submits that there is a Central Act which is framed by the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways. This legislation is known as Inland Vassals Act, 2021 whereby there Page No.# 5/6

is a provision for identifying the designated authority and it is under such circumstances that this Cabinet has taken a decision in terms of the relevant section of the Act and therefore, no separate State legislation is required as the State has proceeded to invoke the provisions under Section 5(3) of the said Central Act. The learned Advocate General has further submitted that the apprehension expressed by the petitioners are misplaced. Referring to proposal No. 4 of the Cabinet Memorandum which is enclosed to the writ petition, he submits that the proposal itself specifies that it is only a part of the cadre will be transferred to the respondent No. 5-Company for facilitating regulatory, enforcement and safety functions and those employees who are drawn from the Department of IWT shall be engaged without affecting their existing and future service conditions and without requiring the expressed consent of the employees in the interest of their services and their salaries and wages will be drawn from the Inland Water Transport's Budget during their period of service. He submits that this proposal has also been approved by the Cabinet and therefore, the apprehension expressed by the writ petitioners at this stage is totally misplaced. Nevertheless, he would like to complete his instructions in the matter from the State Department, if required, an affidavit he is also required to be filed.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, let notice be issued, Returnable in four weeks.

7. Ms. M.D Borah, learned counsel assisting the Advocate General will accept notice on behalf of all the respondents, therefore, notices are waived. However, extra copies be furnished within a period of one week from today.

8. Upon hearing the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, issue notice on the interim prayer.

Page No.# 6/6

9. As it is submitted that a similar writ petition is pending, let this matter be connected with W.P(C) No. 617/2026 to be listed on 11.03.2026.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant