The State of Assam and 3 Others Vs M/S Palashi Enterprise — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The State of Assam and 3 Others Vs M/S Palashi Enterprise — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the common order dated 27.09.2022 passed in WP(C) No.5264/2021 and the connected writ petitions can be reviewed/recalled on the ground that the Ministry of Jal Shakti was not made a party thereto.

Court's answer

At the time the order dated 27.09.2022 was passed, the Ministry of Jal Shakti was duly represented by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India; no objection was raised on the ground of non-joinder of a necessary party, and the Ministry has not sought any review of the order.

Ratio / Principle

If the writ petitioners failed to implead the Ministry of Jal Shakti such that the order dated 27.09.2022 cannot be implemented on technical grounds, it is for the writ petitioners themselves to face the consequences; such failure cannot be a ground for this Court to review/recall the order, which was passed after hearing counsel including the Deputy Solicitor General representing the Ministry of Jal Shakti in the Union of India as well as the Brahmaputra Board.

Key takeaways

For the reasons stated, this Court finds no good ground to review the order dated 27.09.2022; the Review Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition dismissed. The Gauhati High Court (Devashis Baruah, J.; judgment dated 11.08.2025) declined to review/recall its common order dated 27.09.2022 passed in WP(C) No.5264/2021 along with connected writ petitions, which had directed the State of Assam to communicate the supplementary budget pertaining to the scheme to the Ministry of Jal Shakti, the Ministry to release the amount due under the schemes within 60 days, and clearance of the writ petitioners' bills within a further 45 days. Non-joinder of the Ministry of Jal Shakti was held not to be a ground for review: the order itself contained a direction to the Ministry; the Ministry was duly represented by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India when the order was passed; no objection of non-joinder was raised; and the Ministry never sought review. Any consequence of the writ petitioners' failure to implead the Ministry rests on the writ petitioners and cannot justify review. The Court noted, on counsel's candid admission, that the order of 27.09.2022 remains uncomplied with even in writ petitions where the Ministry was impleaded.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010127942025

2025:GAU-AS:10589

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

Case No. : Review.Pet./115/2025

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 OTHERS

REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM

2: THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM

3: THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BHARALUMUKH GUWAHATI-781009 ASSAM.

4: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI WEST WATER RESOURCES DIVISION BHARALUMUKH GUWAAHATI-9 ASSAM

VERSUS

M/S PALASHI ENTERPRISE

REP BY PRABHAT SARMA, S/O. LT. KAKHESWAR SARMA, R/O. HUDUMPUR, P/S. PALASBARI, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM

For the petitioner (s) : Ms. R. Deka,

SC, Water Resource

Page No.# 2/5

For the respondent (s) : XXXX

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

Date of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date of Judgment : 11.08.2025

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

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

The present review application has been filed challenging the common order dated 27.09.2022 passed in WP(C) No.5264/2021 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

Page No.# 3/5

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.”

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.

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,

Page No.# 4/5

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.

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. R. K. Dev Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India but no objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground of nonjoinder of necessary party. Moreover, the said Ministry has also not sought any review of the order.

It was for the petitioners to implead the Ministry of Jal Shakti and if they had failed to do so resulting in a situation where the order dated 27.09.2022 cannot be implemented on technical grounds, even then, it would be for the writ petitioners to face the consequences. The same cannot, however, be a ground for this Court to review/ recall the order dated 27.09.2022, which was passed by this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties including the Deputy Solicitor General of India representing the Ministry of Jal Shakti in the Union of India as well as the Brahmaputra Board.

Page No.# 5/5

For the reasons stated herein above, this Court does not find any good ground to review the order dated 27.09.2022.

Consequently, the Review Petition is held to be devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly, dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant