Gauhati High Court
Md. Muslim Ali vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 8 April, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010141342020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3586/2020
MD. MUSLIM ALI
R/O- SUNDARBARI
H.NO. 29
P.O. AND P.S. JALUKBARI
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN-
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PUBLIC WORK (ROADS) DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-6
ASSAM
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PWD
CHANDMARI
GHY-03
ASSAM
3:THE PRINCIPAL SECY.
BODOLAND TERRITORIEL COUNCIL
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
4:THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER-CUM-DIRECTOR
BTC
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
5:THE SUPEREINTEND ENGINEER
PWD
(R AND B) CIRCLE
Page No.# 2/3
B.T.C.
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD
MUSHALPUR (R AND B) DIVISION
MUSHALPUR
------------
Advocate for : MRS A BUJARBARUAH
Advocate for : SC
BTC appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 08-04-2021
Heard Ms. A. Bujarbaruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Nayak, learned
Standing Counsel, Public Works Department (PWD) as well as Bodoland Territorial Council
(BTC) for all the respondents.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was awarded a contract work viz. "Black topping
of road from NH-31 Murmela to Rangapara under SOPD, Fund for the year 2016-17" ('the
subject-work", for short). By a notice to proceed dated 11.01.2018, the petitioner was asked
to proceed with the execution of the subject-work in accordance with the contract agreement.
Accordingly, the petitioner started to execute the work w.e.f. 11.01.2018. During the course
of the execution of the subject-work, it was inspected by the respondent no. 6 and upon such
inspection, the respondent no. 6 by submitting a Completion Report had certified that upon
physical verification, the petitioner was found to have executed the subject-work to the
extent of 34.24%. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted a
running bill before the respondent authorities in consonance with the Inspection Report
submitted by the respondent no. 6. According to the petitioner, an amount of Rs. 49,84,572/-
towards the said running bill has not been released till date. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Mr. Nayak has submitted that since the respondent no. 6 had reported after physical
Page No.# 3/3
verification that the petitioner had completed the subject-work to the extent of 34.24%, it
appears that he is entitled for the amount to the extent of 34.24%. He has, therefore,
submitted that the respondent no. 4 has to examine the entitlement vis-a-vis the claim of the
petitioner and the question of release to the extent entitled to be received by the petitioner
can only be decided thereafter. He has further submitted that this writ petition can be
disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 4 to examine the claim of the petitioner in
consultation with respondent no. 3 and if upon such examination, the petitioner is entitled for
the amount of Rs. 49,84,572/- then only the said amount can be released subject to
availability of fund.
4. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the fact that the respondent no. 6 had verified that the petitioner had completed
the subject-work to the extent of 34.24%, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction
to the respondent no. 4 to examine the claim of the petitioner in consultation with the
respondent no. 3 and if after such examination, the petitioner is found entitled to any amount
towards execution of the subject-work the respondents shall initiate the process to release
such outstanding amount entitled to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and by
following the guidelines laid down in the Full Bench judgment of this Court, rendered on
29.09.2008, in Writ Appeal No. 484/2005 [ Tamsher Ali and Ors. vs. State of Assam and Ors.],
reported in 2008(4) GLT 1 (FB).
5. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
