GAHC010243222025

2025:GAU-

AS:15386-DB

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : PIL/56/2025 SANDEEP CHAMARIA

S/O- LATE SHIWA KUMAR CHAMARIA, ADDRESS- CHAMARIA SADAN,

CHAKRESWAR PATH, KALIPUR (RIVERSIDE), GUWAHATI-781010

VERSUS

STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.

REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.

OF ASSAM, CULTURAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, ADDRESS- A- BLOCK, 3RD

FLOOR, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, 781006, DISTRICT-

KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

2:DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

GOVT. OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO

THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

ADDRESS- GROUND FLOOR

F BLOCK

JANATA BHAWAN

DISPUR

GUWAHATI PIN-781006

DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM.

3:DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (BUILDINGS) AND NH

REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL

SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING AND NH DEPARTMENT

ADDRESS- BLOCK B

GROUND FLOOR

ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI PIN- 781006 DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM.

4:DIRECTORATE OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS ADDRESS - OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS ASSAM RABINDRA BHAWAN AMBARI GUWAHATI PIN-781001 DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : PETITIONER IN PERSON, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE,SC, PWD (BULDING)

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

ORDER

Date : 14/11/2025 (Michael Zothankhuma, J)

Heard Mr. S. Chamaria, petitioner-in-person, who submits that the Rabindra Bhawan Auditorium, which is managed by the Government of Assam, is a cultural land mark, inasmuch as, the auditorium is dedicated for the performance of Art and Culture of the State of Assam. However, the said Rabindra Bhawan has become run down and in this respect Rs. 111 crore plan had been made to upgrade its infrastructure. However, the same has not been done even till today. The petitioner-in-person thus prays that the respondents should be directed to complete the renovation work of Rabindra Bhawan within a specified time period and all the proposed construction work, its plan etc. should be put to public notice.

2. On perusing the petition, we find that no representation has been submitted by the petitioner prior to approaching this Court with regard to his grievance. As such, we are not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage, in the absence of the petitioner first approaching the State Government with a representation regarding his grievance. 3. 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.

4. The petitioner stated that no representation had been filed.

5. 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.

6. 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.”

7. 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.

8. Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel appears for the respondent nos. 1, 3 & 4 and Mr.

B. Gogoi, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.2.

9. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this PIL. The same is accordingly dismissed, with liberty being given to the petitioner to first approach the State Government with a representation with regard to his grievance.

JUDGE JUDGE Com