SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 12518

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS – Appellant
Versus
ASHOK KUMAR AGARWALLA – Respondent
Review.Pet. / 135 / 2025



GAHC010130802025 2025:GAU-AS:14748

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : Review.Pet./135/2025

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WATER

RESOURCES DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006, ASSAM.

2: THE CHIEF ENGINEER

WATER RESOURCES DEPTT.

CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03

ASSAM.

3: THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER

LOWER ASSAM ZONE WATER RESOURCES DEPTT.

GOVT. OF ASSAM

CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03

ASSAM.

4: THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

WATER RESOURCES DEPTT.

GOVT. OF ASSAM

CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 3

ASSAM.

5: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

DHEMAJI WATER RESOURCES DIVISION

UNDER WATER RESOURCES DEPTT.

GOVT. OF DHEMAJI

ASSAM

VERSUS ASHOK KUMAR AGARWALLA S/O LT. SURAJMAL AGARWALLA, R/O FLAT NO. 202, MAHABIR APARTMENT USHA GALI, A.T. ROAD, BHARALUMUKH, GUWAHATI 781009, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Ms. R Deka Advocates for the respondent(s) :

Date of hearing & judgment :31.10.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

Heard Ms. R. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners.

2. The present review application has been filed challenging the common order dated 27.09.2022 passed in WP(C) No.6596/2019 whereby the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties in the said writ petition along with the batch of connected writ petitions passed the following order:-

“(1) Within 15 (fifteen) days from today, the concerned official of the State Government of Assam will communicate the supplementary budget passed in the last Assembly Session pertaining to the scheme to the competent authority of the Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India.

(2) Within 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of such communication, the Ministry of Jal Shakti to release the amount due under the schemes to the concerned Department of the Government of Assam.

(3) Upon receipt of the amount, bills of the writ petitioners shall be processed and cleared within a further period of 45 days.

In view of the directions issued herein above, the respondents to complete the entire process within a period of four months from today.

A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. B. Goswami, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam and Mr. R. K. Dev Choudhury, learned DSGI. The written instructions dated 26.09.2022 be kept as a part of the record of this case.

All these writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.”

3. By referring to the order dated 27.09.2022, Ms. R. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners has argued that the review petition arises out of the common order dated 27.09.2022 passed in the connected writ petitions wherein, the Ministry of Jal Shakti was not made a party.

4. Contending that the pending bills could not be cleared by the State of Assam due to non-receipt of the share of contribution coming from the Ministry of Jal Shakti, Union of India, Ms. R. Deka, the learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that these writ petitions are required to be heard afresh after serving notice upon the Ministry of Jal Shakti. Ms. R. Deka, the learned counsel for the review petitioners has, however, candidly submitted that the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by this Court even in respect of those writ petitions where the Ministry of Jal Shakti was impleaded as party, has not been complied with till today.

5. Be that as it may, this Court finds that by the order dated 27.09.2022 direction was also issued to the Ministry of Jal Shakti to release the amount due under the scheme. The Ministry of Jal Shakti was duly represented by Mr. RK. Dev Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, but no objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. Moreover, the said Ministry has also not sought any review of the order.

6. It was for the petitioners to implead the Ministry of Jal Shakti and if they had failed to do so resulting in a situation wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top