M/S B. B. ENTERPRISE vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. Advocate - SC, P H E — WP(C)/2774/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: GAHC010104142026

e-Filing Number

25-05-2026

Filing Number

WP(C)/5942/2026

Filing Date

25-May-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/2774/2026

Registration Date

26-May-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

10180 - Award of contracts by the State or its instrumentalities ( 172 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Last updated 30-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S B. B. ENTERPRISE

    Adv. MR. P TALUKDAR,MS D ANGANA,MS D ANGANA, ,MS D ANGANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. Advocate - SC, P H E

  2. 2.THE CHIEF ENGINEER,

  3. 3.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,

  4. 4.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

  5. 5.THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 29-May-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan NairView PDF

    Case Summary: In WP(C)/2774/2026 before the Gauhati High Court, M/S B.B. Enterprise (proprietor Sri Nripen Barman) filed a petition against the State of Assam and four Public Health Engineering Department officials. On 29-05-2026, Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair passed an order noting that none appeared for the petitioner on the scheduled hearing date. The court adjourned the matter and directed the registry to list it again after two weeks on a date to be fixed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/2774/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: In WP(C)/2774/2026 before the Gauhati High Court, M/S B.B. Enterprise (proprietor Sri Nripen Barman) filed a petition against the State of Assam and four Public Health Engineering Department officials. On 29-05-2026, Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair passed an order noting that none appeared for the petitioner on the scheduled hearing date. The court adjourned the matter and directed the registry to list it again after two weeks on a date to be fixed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case