Gauhati High Court
Shankar Roy vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 7 December, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010020032017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2310/2017
SHANKAR ROY
S/O LT. SUSHIL ROY R/O KARIMGANJ WARD NO. 6, LXMI BAZAR ROAD,
P.O. and DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
RURAL ROAD DIVISION
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI -7.
3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT
RURAL ROAD DIVISION KARIMGANJ
ASSAM P.O.
P.S. and DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N H LASKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
07.12.2021
Heard Mr. A.H.M.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned
Standing Counsel, Public Works Department [PWD] for all the respondents.
2. The case of the petitioner, as projected in this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is, in brief that the petitioner as a contractor registered under the respondent
PWD, was awarded 20 [twenty] nos. of contract works and he executed the same to the satisfaction of
the respondent authorities in the respondent PWD. After execution of the said 20 [twenty] nos. of
contract works, mentioned in the table in paragraph-3 of the writ petition, he submitted his final bills
for those contract works. Though some part payments were made by the respondent PWD but an
amount of Rs. 5,87,516/- had remained outstanding for disbursal. The petitioner as the plaintiff
instituted a money suit being Money Suit no. 13/2014 claiming a decree in respect of the said
outstanding amount of Rs. 5,87,516/- amongst the other reliefs. In the said money suit, the respondents
herein were arrayed as the defendant no. 3, the defendant no. 2 and the defendant no. 1 respectively.
The defendants filed their written statement in the said money suit. The learned Court of Civil Judge,
Karimganj passed a judgment and decree on 28.09.2016 whereby the said suit was dismissed. The
learned Civil Court had held that the suit was not maintainable due to lack of cause of action. It was
also held that the suit was barred by the law of limitation. By holding so, the learned Civil Judge had
held that the plaintiff was not entitled to get any relief, as prayed for.
3. The present writ petition has been preferred seeking a direction to the respondent authorities in
the PWD to disburse the outstanding bill amount of Rs. 5,87,516/- in respect of the afore-mentioned
contract works to the petitioner.
4. As has been noted above, the petitioner had approached the civil court earlier seeking the same
relief by instituting money suit, Money Suit no. 13/2014. The money suit was dismissed by the
judgment and decree dated 28.09.2016 wherein it was held that the suit of the plaintiff had no cause of
action and it was barred by the law of limitation. Hence, the petitioner ought to have been preferred an
appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2016 as per the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure instead of approaching another jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As
Page No.# 3/3
the decision in the money suit has already attained finality, this Court is not in a position to assume the
jurisdiction which is available under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In such view of the
matter, this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not entertained and
the same is dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
