Dismissed¶58

The State of Assam and 4 Others v. Bijoy Boro

Gauhati HC9 Nov 2025Review.Pet./203/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; review of writ order; Review.Pet./203/2025; WP(C)/4776/2021; non-joinder of necessary party; Ministry of Jal Shakti; Water Resources Department Assam; pending bill clearance directions dated 27.09.2022; review petition dismissed by Justice Devashis Baruah on 10.11.2025; order of 27.09.2022 maintained.

What did the court decide?

By the order dated 27.09.2022 a direction had been issued to the Ministry of Jal Shakti to release the amount due under the scheme; the Ministry was duly represented by Mr. RK Dev Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India; no objection was raised by counsel for the respondents on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party; and the Ministry has itself not sought any review of the order. ¶55

The State of Assam and 4 Others Vs Bijoy Boro — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the common order dated 27.09.2022 passed in WP(C) No.4776/2021 (with connected writ petitions) should be reviewed/recalled by this Court on the ground that the Ministry of Jal Shakti, which was directed to release funds under the schemes, was not made a party to those writ petitions.

¶51

Court's answer

¶55

Ratio / Principle

It was for the writ petitioners to implead the Ministry of Jal Shakti; if their failure to do so means the order dated 27.09.2022 cannot be implemented on technical grounds, the writ petitioners must face the consequences — that 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.

¶56

Key takeaways

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¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Judgment & Order (Oral), Justice Devashis Baruah, 10.11.2025): Review.Pet./203/2025 filed by the State of Assam and 4 others of the Water Resources Department (Secretary, Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer Nagaon Circle, Executive Engineer Morigaon Division, Assistant Executive Engineer Jagi Road Sub-Division) against Bijoy Boro, seeking review/recall of the common order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench in WP(C) No.4776/2021 along with connected writ petitions. The 27.09.2022 order had directed communication of the supplementary budget to the Ministry of Jal Shakti, release of amounts due under the schemes, and clearance of the writ petitioners' bills within fixed periods. The review was sought on the contention that the Ministry of Jal Shakti was not made a party and the bills remained uncleared for want of the Union share. The Court found that the order dated 27.09.2022 had itself directed the Ministry to release the amounts; the Ministry was duly represented by the learned Deputy Solicitor General when the order was passed; no objection of non-joinder of necessary party was raised; and the Ministry never sought review. It held that failure of the writ petitioners to implead the Ministry, and any resulting inability to implement the order on technical grounds, was for the writ petitioners to face and could not be a ground to review/recall the order. Finding no good ground for review, the Court dismissed the Review Petition, leaving the order dated 27.09.2022 intact.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010128932025

2025:GAU-AS:15225

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

¶5

Case No. : Review.Pet./203/2025

¶6

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 OTHERS

¶7

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

¶8

2: THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-03 ASSAM.

¶9

3: THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER NAGAON WATER RESOURCE CIRCLE A.T. ROAD NAGAON-782001 ASSAM.

¶10

4: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MORIGAON WATER RESOURCE DIVISION MORIGAON

¶11

ASSAM-782105.

¶12

5: THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER JAGI ROAD WATER RESOURCE SUB-DIVISION JAGIROAD-782041

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

BIJOY BORO

¶15

S/O. SRI. ANIL BHARALI, R/O. ARUNODAY PATH, HENGRABARI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781036.

¶16

Page No.# 2/5

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R M DAS,

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶19

Linked Case : WP(C)/4776/2021

¶20

BIJOY BORO S/O SRI ANIL BHARALI RESIDENT OF ARUNODAY PATH HENGRABARI PO HENGARABARI DIST KAMRUP (M) ASSAM GUWAHATI 781036

¶21

VERSUS

¶22

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶23

WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 06

¶24

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

¶25

WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03

¶26

3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

¶27

NAGOAN WATER RESOURCE CIRCLE DIST NAGAON ASSAM 782001

¶28

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶29

MORIGAON WATER RESOURCE DIVISION MORIGAON ASSAM 782105

¶30

5:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶31

Page No.# 3/5

¶32

JAGIROAD WATER RESOURCES SUB DIVISION JAGIROAD 782041

¶33

B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶34

Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. RM Das

¶35

Advocates for the respondent(s) :

¶36

Date on which Judgment is reserved : NA

¶37

Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 10.11.2025

¶38

Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment

¶39

Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced

¶40

JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

¶41

Heard Mr. RM Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners.

¶42

The present review application has been filed challenging the common order dated 27.09.2022 passed in WP(C) No.4776/2021 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:-

¶43

“(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

¶44

Page No.# 4/5

¶45

competent authority of the Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India.

¶46

(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.

¶47

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

¶48

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.

¶49

The written instructions dated 26.09.2022 be kept as a part of the record of this case.

¶50

All these writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.”

¶51

By referring to the order dated 27.09.2022, Mr. RM Das, 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.

¶52

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, Mr. RM Das, 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. Mr. RM Das, 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

¶53

Page No.# 5/5

¶54

petitions where the Ministry of Jal Shakti was impleaded as party, has not been complied with till today.

¶55

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.

¶56

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.

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

JUDGE

¶60

Comparing Assistant

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Common order dated 27.09.2022 passed in WP(C) No.4776/2021, along with a batch of connected writ petitions, by the learned Coordinate Bench of the Gauhati High Court, directing inter alia communication of the supplementary budget to the Ministry of Jal Shakti, release of amounts due under the schemes, and clearance of the writ petitioners' bills within fixed periods, and disposing of all the writ petitions. The present review seeks review/recall of that order.¶42
Coordinate Bench of the Gauhati High Court · 27.09.2022
Prior proceeding
Underlying writ petition WP(C)/4776/2021 filed by Bijoy Boro against the State of Assam and 4 ors of the Water Resources Department, recorded as the Linked Case.¶19
Prior proceeding
Directions in the order dated 27.09.2022: State official to communicate the supplementary budget pertaining to the scheme to the competent authority of the Ministry of Jal Shakti within 15 days; Ministry of Jal Shakti to release the amount due within 60 days of receipt; bills of the writ petitioners to be processed and cleared within a further 45 days; respondents to complete the entire process within four months; copy of the order furnished to the Addl. Advocate General and the DSGI; written instructions dated 26.09.2022 kept on record; all writ petitions disposed of accordingly.¶48
Prior proceeding
Ground of the review: counsel for the review petitioners contended the pending bills could not be cleared by the State of Assam due to non-receipt of the share of contribution from the Ministry of Jal Shakti, Union of India, and prayed that the writ petitions be heard afresh after serving notice on the Ministry.¶52
Prior proceeding
Submission recorded at the review hearing: counsel for the review petitioners candidly submitted that the order dated 27.09.2022 has not been complied with till today, even in respect of those writ petitions where the Ministry of Jal Shakti was impleaded as party.¶54

The State of Assam and 4 Others v. Bijoy Boro

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Assam and 4 Others v. Bijoy Boro

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajib Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sarbananda Bora Vs Union of India and 6 Ors.

Subir Paul Vs Biswajit Pegu, IAS and Anr.

The State of Assam and 4 Ors. Vs Kamal Hussain

The State of Assam and 3 Ors. Vs Rupjyoti Phukan

M/S Bipul Sarma Vs Asim Kr Bhattacharya and 3 Ors.