Gauhati High Court
Manoranjan Brahma vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 19 August, 2021
Page No. 1/4
GAHC010047392021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1733/2021
MANORANJAN BRAHMA
S/O SRI BANESWAR BRAHMA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAGANSHALI, PO AND PS KOKRAJHAR, BTC,
DIST KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, 783370
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
DISPUR GUWAHATI 06
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM 783370
3:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER
PWD(ROAD ENGINEER DIVISION ) DIST KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM 783370
4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD(RURAL ROAD DIVISION ) DIST KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM 78337
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS M DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD
Page No. 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 19-08-2021
The Court proceedings have been conducted through online court
proceeding services.
2. Heard Ms. M. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C.S.
Hazarika, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent no. 1 and Mr.
P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, BTC for the respondent nos. 2 - 4.
3. The case projected on behalf of the petitioner is that he is a registered
contractor under the Public Works Department (PWD), Government of Assam.
The respondent no. 2 gave administrative approval for the contract work of
"Construction of Pucca drain cum footpath along on Baganshali to Kokrajhar
Railway Station road via Kokrajhar College (From Ch. 0.00m to 350.00m) under
BTC for the year 2015-16" ('the contract work', for short) for the period of 2
(two) years at an estimated cost of Rs. 86,56,000/- on 08.01.2015 (Annexure-
I). Technical sanction for the contract work was granted on 13.01.2016
(Annexure-II). A tender process was initiated for award of the said contract
work where the petitioner participated. The petitioner emerged as the
successful bidder and the respondent no. 3 had issued a letter of acceptance
dated 02.02.2016 (Annexure-III) in respect of the contract work at a contract
price of Rs. 85,54,715/-, subject to observance of formalities. Thereafter, the
notice to proceed with the contract work was issued on 09.02.2016 (Annexure-
IV). According to the petitioner, the petitioner proceeded to execute the contract
work and completed the same as per the terms and conditions of the contract
agreement. It is the further case of the petitioner that after completion of the
Page No. 3/4
contract work, the respondent BTC authorities had inspected the contract work
executed by the petitioner and after inspection, a completion certificate
(Annexure-V) had also been issued certifying that after physical verification, the
contract work had been found completed as per the specification, drawings and
tender agreement. It is the case of the petitioner that after execution of the
contract work, he submitted the final bill before the respondent authorities and
out of the total bill amount of Rs. 85,47,760/-, he has only been paid partly an
amount of Rs. 16,42,070/-. An amount of Rs. 69,05,690/- has still remained
outstanding to be paid, which is also reflected in the completion certificate
(Annexure-V). Hence the writ petition.
4. Mr. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, BTC appearing for the respondent
BTC authorities has submitted that as the petitioner has annexed a completion
certificate as regards the contract work, the claim of the petitioner can be
examined and verified at the end of the respondent BTC authorities. Upon such
examination and verification, if the petitioner is found entitled to receive any
balance amount for execution of the contract work under reference the
respondent BTC authorities will take appropriate steps for release of the same to
the petitioner in due course and in the light of the directions given 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) and similar other 194 writ petitions and, as such, the
respondent authorities will process the claim of the petitioner in the light of the
principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgment. With the above submissions,
Mr. Nayak has submitted that this writ petition can be disposed of at this stage
with a direction to the respondent BTC authorities to examine and verify the
Page No. 4/4
same and thereafter, to release the outstanding dues, if any, found entitled to
the petitioner. Mr. Hazarika has also endorsed the said submission.
5. Having considered the case projected on behalf of the petitioner and upon
hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that
instead of keeping the writ petition pending here, it is the respondent BTC
authorities who shall examine and consider the grievance of the petitioner.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself, with a
direction to the respondent nos. 2 & 3 to examine the claim of the petitioner as
regards entitlement of the petitioner for the balance amount of Rs. 69,05,690/-
in respect of execution of the contract work under reference and, if after such
examination and verification, the petitioner is found entitled to any balance
amount, then the respondent BTC authorities would process the claim of the
petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of the direction contained in
Tamsher Ali (supra).
6. The petitioner shall submit a certified copy of this order along with a copy
of the writ petition with annexures, to the respondent no. 3 for his doing the
needful.
7. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above directions.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
