Dismissed¶32

Kamal Singh Dugar v. the Rubber Board and 6 Ors.

Writ Petition – Civil dispute

Gauhati HC17 May 2026WP(C)/2581/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; Kamal Singh Dugar v. The Rubber Board and 6 others; WP(C)/2581/2026; order dated 18.05.2026; Justice Devashis Baruah; writ petition dismissed; Rubber Board rejected petitioner's claim of Rs. 3,32,300.92 and demanded Rs. 4,03,257 as risk and cost; dispute held purely civil in nature; questions of fact and damages to be agitated before court/forum of competent jurisdiction where evidence can be led; public law remedy not maintainable; dismissal without precluding civil suit; advocates H. Buragohain, C Agarwal, H Borah, A Devi for petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The instant dispute between the petitioner and the Rubber Board is purely a dispute of civil nature. ¶31

Kamal Singh Dugar Vs the Rubber Board and 6 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the dispute between the petitioner and the Rubber Board — the Board's rejection of his claim of Rs. 3,32,300.92p. and its demand for Rs. 4,03,257/-, including whether 'risk and cost' could have been imposed after a long lapse of time — is a purely civil-nature dispute whose factual questions must be agitated before a Court of competent jurisdiction where evidence can be led, rather than resolved through a writ (public law) remedy. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

The instant dispute between the petitioner and the Rubber Board is purely a dispute of civil nature.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Whether the respondent Rubber Board is entitled to recover Rs. 4,03,257/- from the petitioner, and whether risk and cost could have been imposed upon him after a long lapse of time, are questions of fact which must be agitated before a Court of competent jurisdiction where evidence can be led.

¶31

Key takeaways

The question of damages is to be ascertained before the appropriate forum, rather than by initiating a public law remedy.ratio¶31
The Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition; the writ petition stands dismissed.ratio¶32
Observation recorded before parting with the record: the dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude or prejudice the petitioner from approaching the competent Court of jurisdiction, if otherwise permissible under law.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition — Civil dispute — Public law remedy inappropriate. The Gauhati High Court (Devashis Baruah, J.), by order dated 18.05.2026 in W.P.(C) No. 2581/2026, declined to entertain a petition by Kamal Singh Dugar aggrieved by the Rubber Board's rejection of his claim of Rs. 3,32,300.92p. and its intimation that he was liable to pay Rs. 4,03,257/- as 'risk and cost'. Holding the dispute to be purely civil in nature, the Court ruled that the Board's entitlement to recover Rs. 4,03,257/-, the belated imposition of risk and cost, and the ascertainment of damages are questions of fact requiring agitation before a Court of competent jurisdiction wherein evidence can be led, not matters for a public law remedy. The writ petition was dismissed, with an express observation that the dismissal shall not preclude or prejudice the petitioner from approaching the competent Court of jurisdiction, if so otherwise permissible under law.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010090112026

2026:GAU-AS:6813

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2581/2026

¶6

KAMAL SINGH DUGAR S/O LT. MULCHAND DUGAR

¶7

R/O H/NO. 09, BYE LANE NO. 10 SOUTH SARANIA, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI781007, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE RUBBER BOARD AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KOTTAYAM-686009, KERALA,INDIA.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR P AND RD

¶11

THE RUBBER BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROCESSING AND PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT KOTTAYAM- 686009 KERALA INDIA.

¶12

3:THE JOINT DIRECTOR

¶13

THE RUBBER BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROCESSING AND PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT KOTTAM -686009 KERALA INDIA.

¶14

4:THE JOINT DIRECTOR (P AND QC)

¶15

THE RUBBER BOARD DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND PROCESSING DIVISION KOTTAYAM-686009 INDIA.

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

5:THE JOINT RUBBER PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER

¶18

RUBBER BOARD ZONAL OFFICE CENTRAL BLOCK II 1ST FLOOR HOUSEFED COMPLEX BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD GUWAHATI-781006. 6:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

¶19

RUBBER BOARD ZONAL OFFICE

¶20

CENTRAL BLOCK-II 1ST FLOOR HOUSEFED COMPLEX BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD GUWAHATI-781006. 7:JUNIOR ENGINEER CIVIL RUBBER BOARD ZONAL OFFICE CENTRAL BLOCK-II 1ST FLOOR HOUSEFED COMPLEX BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD GUWAHATI-781006

¶21

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. H. BURAGOHAIN, MR. C AGARWAL,MS. H BORAH,MS A DEVI

¶22

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶23

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶24

ORDER

¶25

18.05.2026

¶26

Heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶27

2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the actions on the part of the

¶28

Page No.# 3/4

¶29

Rubber Board in not only rejecting the claim of the petitioner to the amount of Rs. 3,32,300.92p., but also for informing the petitioner that on the other hand, the petitioner has to pay an amount of Rs. 4,03,257/-.

¶30

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the action on the part of the respondent authorities, more particularly, the Rubber Board, is arbitrary; taking into account that the risk and cost, which is sought to be imposed upon the petitioner, has been done at a much belated stage and therefore, the actions on the part of the said Rubber Board is not fair.

¶31

4. This Court has duly taken note of the aforesaid aspect and is of the opinion that the instant dispute is purely a dispute of civil nature. The question as to whether, the respondent Rubber Board would be entitled to recover any amount from the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 4,03,257/or for that matter, whether the risk and cost could have been imposed upon the petitioner after a long lapse of time, as has been contended by the petitioner; are questions of facts, which are required to be agitated before a Court of competent jurisdiction, wherein, evidence can be led. Apart from the above, the question of damages are to be ascertained before the appropriate forum, rather than initiating a public law remedy.

¶32

5. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, for which, this writ petition stands dismissed.

¶33

6. Before parting with the record, this Court, however, observes that

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude or prejudice of the petitioner to approach the competent Court of jurisdiction, if so otherwise permissible under law.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Kamal Singh Dugar v. the Rubber Board and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Singh Dugar v. the Rubber Board and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Singh Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Praveen Kumar Gupta Vs Km Gopal Sana Rajkumar

Manju Daimari Vs Anurag Goel and Ors.

Nayak Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Ananta Singha Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Sapoi Tea Company Limited Vs the State of Assam and Ors.