Mahendra Prasad Sarmah vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 322 Gua

                                                                      Page No. 1/3

GAHC010006002020




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/212/2020

         MAHENDRA PRASAD SARMAH
         S/O- LT. KUMUD CH. SARMAH, VILL AND P.O. BARANGABARI, P.S.
         SIPAJHAR, DIST.- DARRANG (ASSAM), PIN- 784522

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
         REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION
         DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

         2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
          IRRIGATION
         ASSAM
          CHANDMARI
          GHY-3

         3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
          MANGALDAI CIRCLE (IRRIGATION)
          MANGALDAI
          DIST.- DARRANG
         ASSAM
          PIN- 784125

         4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
          DARRANG DISTRICT
          DARRANG
          MANGALDAI
          PIN- 784125

         5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          MANGALDAI DIVISION (IRRIGATION)
          MANGALDAI
         ASSAM
          PIN- 784125
                                                                                     Page No. 2/3


            6:THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
             MANGALDAI SUB-DIVISION (IRRIGATION)
             MANGALDAI
            ASSAM
             PIN- 78412

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S MUKTAR

Advocate for the Respondent : SR. GA, ASSAM


                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                           ORDER

Date : 01-02-2021

Heard Mr. S.K. Muktar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 5 & 6 and Mr. G. Pegu, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent no. 4.

The grievance of the writ petitioner in the instant writ petition is that he had carried out certain works allotted to him by the respondent authorities in the Irrigation Department and he had successfully completed those works allotted to him. Though he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 31,56,900.00 on account of the same, the respondent authorities have not paid the aforesaid amount, which according to the petitioner is an admitted amount.

Mr. Upadhyay has submitted that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 on 19.01.2021, it has been mentioned that the respondent authorities have initiated the process for according administrative approval, technical sanction, etc. for release of the amount of Rs. 31,56,900.00 and the payment would be made after completing the necessity formalities like issuance of formal work order and other relevant works. He has further 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 examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of the principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgment.

Page No. 3/3

In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself with a direction to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department to 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 is to obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department for his doing the needful.

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

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant