GAHC010238592025

2025:GAU-

AS:15387-DB

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : PIL/57/2025

BISWAJIT DAS

S/O- SUREN DAS,

R/O- VILL- SANTIPUR,

P.O. SANTIPUR, BAKSA,

ASSAM, PIN- 781349.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

2:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS AND BRIDGES)

ASSAM

3:CHIEF ENGINEER TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS AND BRIDGES) CHANDMARI

4:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D P CHALIHA, MS M ROY

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, PWD,SC, P AND R.D.

BEFORE

ORDER

Date : 14.11.2025 (M. Zothankhuma, J)

Heard Mr. D. P. Chaliha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.

Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD.

2. The petitioner’s case is that there are many rivers in the State of Assam, which do not have proper bridges and as such, 100 of bridges have been built by the people themselves. These bridges are in a dilapidated condition, which should be made all weather bridges by the Government of Assam.

3. The petitioner’s counsel has relied upon para 3 of the petition, which speaks of 22 bamboo and wooden bridges built by the villagers, which should be made into all weather bridges.

4. This Court had put a query to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner had submitted any representation to the authorities with regard to the issue at hand, prior to the PIL being filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that no representation had been filed. However, the petitioner, being a villager of Baksa district, he had filed the PIL pertaining to various areas within the State of Assam, for the benefit of the poor and needy.

6. In the case of Rosemary Dzuvichu & Ors. Vs. State of Nagaland &

Ors. reported in 2017 2 GLT 443, the Division Bench of this Court held that it could not admit PILs unless Rule 10 of the Gauhati High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2011, (hereinafter referred to as the 2011 Rules), especially Rule 10(g) had been complied with. The Coordinate Bench held that Rule 10(g)

of the 2011 Rules was mandatory.

7. Rule 10 of the 2011 Rules provides the instructions for filing Public Interest Litigation Petitions and Rule 10(g) provides as follows:-

“10(g) In para 6 of the writ petition, details of the representation(s) made to the authorities concerned for remedial actions and replies, if any, received thereto shall be set out precisely.”

8. As the petitioner has not submitted any representation to the authorities prior to filing the present PIL, we are not inclined to admit the present PIL.

9. The PIL is accordingly dismissed, in view of the petitioner not submitting any representation before the authorities, prior to filing the PIL, so that an opportunity is given to the authorities to clarify the issue.

JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant