Sujeet Kr Muchahary @ Sujeet Kr ... vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1910 Gua

                                                             Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010153592020




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

                         Case No. : WP(C)/4571/2020

         SUJEET KR MUCHAHARY @ SUJEET KR MOCHAHARY
         S/O LATE SURENDRA NATH MOCHAHARY VILLAGE NARABARI, PO
         KOKRAJHAR, DIST KOKRAJHAR, BTAD ASSAM 783370



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
         OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS ROAD DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI
         781006

         2:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
          REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
          BODOFA NWGWR
          KOKRAJHAR
          BTAD
         ASSAM 783370

         3:THE SECRETARY
          BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
          PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
          BODOFA NWGWR
          KOKRAJHAR
          BTAD
         ASSAM 783370

         4:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER ENGINEER
          BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
          PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
          BODOFA NWGWR
          KOKRAJHAR
          BTAD
                                                                                  Page No.# 2/4

             ASSAM 783370

             5:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

             DOTMA DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
             DOTMA KOKRAJHAR
             BTAD
             ASSAM 78334

Advocate for the Petitioner   : J U AHMED

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD




                                    BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                            ORDER

19.08.2021

The court proceedings have been conducted through online court proceeding services.

2. Heard Mr. J.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Public Works Department and Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) for all the respondents.

3. It has been projected in the writ petition that the BTC accorded Administrative Approval on 22.01.2016 for two numbers of contract works viz. (i) " impt of rd from Sujeet Muchahary's house to Padmabil rd at Naigaon Batabari, Aflagaon, VCDC of Kokrajhar District " ("Contract Work No. 1" for short) for a total estimated amount not exceeding to Rs. 24,35,000/- and (ii) "impt of rd from Teman house to Garjasali village rd at Naigaon Batabari, Aflagaon, VCDC of Kokrajhar District " ("Contract Work No. 2" for short) for a total estimated amount not exceeding to Rs. 20,00,000/-. In respect of the said two contract works, tender notices were issued on 22.01.2016. The petitioner being a Class-I Contractor and eligible to submit the bids in terms of the said tender notices, submitted his bids and emerged as the successful bidder in respect of both the contract works. The Technical Sanctions for both the Page No.# 3/4

contract works were accorded on 05.02.2016 and thereafter, work orders for the said two contract works were issued to the petitioner on 06.02.2016 for Rs. 24,35,000/- and Rs. 20,00,000/- respectively. Having received the work orders, the petitioner proceeded to execute the contract works and completed the same in terms of the work orders. It is the case of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that after completion of the two contract works, the same were inspected and verified by the respondent authorities in the BTC and after such inspection and verification, the authorities in the BTC submitted Physical Progress Report and Completion Certificates expressing their satisfaction about the completion of the two contract works to the extent of 100%.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the bills submitted by the petitioner in respect of the said two contract works have not been released by the BTC respondent authorities till date. In support of this contention, Mr. Ahmed has referred to the Physical Progress Report and Completion Certificates, annexed to the writ petition. It is submitted by him that the total bill amount of Rs. 44,35,000/- (Rs. 24,35,000/- + Rs. 20,00,000/-) is outstanding dues till date which, according to him, is admitted by the respondent BTC authorities.

5. Mr. Nayak referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 5, has submitted that there is no dispute as regards non-release of the dues to the petitioner in respect of the said two contract works. As regards the liability, a stand has been taken to the effect that the outstanding dues of the petitioner could be paid as and when the fund is made available. Mr. Nayak has submitted that the instant case is squarely covered by 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.

6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to Page No.# 4/4

examine the claim of the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and, then, if the claim is admitted, the respondent authorities would process the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of the directions contained in Tamsher Ali (supra). The petitioner shall submit a certified copy of this order, to the respondent no. 2 for his doing the needful.

7. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above directions.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant