M/S Rana Construction and Engineers Pvt Ltd v. The State of Assam and 4 Ors

ORDER

22.04.2024

¶1Heard the review petitioner-in-person. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PWD for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 and Ms. R. Devi, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 & 5.

¶2The impugned judgment & order dated 17.02.2024 passed in WP(C) No.4982/2023 and WP(C) No.2146/2023 has been sought to be reviewed, by on the ground that certain facts were overlooked by this Court.

¶3The review petitioner-in-person submits that in paragraph-26 of the impugned judgment & order, this Court had stated that the Speaking Order dated 10.04.2023 issued by the Chief Engineer (Border Roads) had not been put to challenge, though prayer no.(iii) in WP(C) No.2146/2023 had prayed for setting aside the Speaking Order dated 10.04.2023. He also submits that similar matters are pending before the High Court. He also prays for liberty to be given to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court.

¶4Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the PWD submits that the observation made in paragraph-26 of the impugned judgment & order that the Speaking Order dated 10.04.2023 has not been put to challenge Page No.# 3/3 appears to be a typographical error, inasmuch as, paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment & order has clearly stated that the Speaking Order dated 10.04.2023 has been put to challenge in WP(C) No.2146/2023. He also submits that no grounds have been made out for review of the impugned judgment & order and as such, the review petition should be dismissed.

¶5I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶6As can be seen from the impugned judgment & order, paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment & order states that the petitioner has been put to challenge the Speaking Order dated 10.04.2023 in WP(C) No.2146/2023. Thus, the observation made in paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment & order to the effect that the Speaking Order dated 10.04.2023 has not been put to challenge, appears to be a mistake. However, the same does not take way the fact that this Court has not found any enforceable right of the petitioner having been violated and due to which the writ petitions were dismissed. Further, the petitioner has not been able to show that any prejudice has been caused to him due to the mistake/wrong observation made in paragraph-26 of the impugned judgment & order. This Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record nor does it find any reason for reviewing the impugned judgment & order. Consequently, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment & order.

¶7The review petition is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010067012024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oReview.Pet./50/2024o M/SoRANAoCONSTRUCTIONoANDoENGINEERSoPVToLTDo SURAJoCOMPLEX,oULUBARIoCHARIALI,oKAMRUPo(M),oGUWAHATI-07,o ASSAM,oREP.oBYoONEoOFoITSoDIRECTORSo,oRANAoZAMAN,oAGEoABOUTo51o YRS,oS/O-oALHAZoRAHMANoALI,oR/O-oHOUSEoNO-o62,oRAHMANoMANSION,o SOUTHoSARANIA,oP.O-oULUBARI,oDIST-oKAMRUPo(M),oASSAM,oGUWAHATI- VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo4oORSo REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARY,oTOoTHEo GOVERNMENToOFoASSAM,oPUBLICoWORKSoROADSoDEPARTMENTo,o ASSAMoSECRETARIAT,oDISPUR,oGUWAHATI,oASSAM,oPIN-o781006 2:THEoCHIEFoENGINEER oPUBLICoWORKSoDEPARTMENTo(BORDERoROADS) oCHANDMARI oGUWAHATI-03oASSAM 3:THEoEXECUTIVEoENGINEER oPUBLICoWORKSoDEPARTMENT oMORIGAONoDISTRICToTERRITORIALoROADoDIVISION oMORIGAON oASSAM 4:THEoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoINDIA oMINISTRYoOFoRURALoDEVELOPMENT oRURALoCONNECTIVITYo(RC)oDIVISION oKRISHIoBHAVANoNEWoDELHI-01 5:NATIONALoRURALoINFRASTRUCTUREoDEVELOPMENToAGENCY oREP.oBYoITSoDIRECTORoGENERALo oKRISHIoBHAWAN Page No.# 2/3 NEW DELHI-0 Advocate for the Petitioner : PETITIONER IN PERSON Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA