Md. Zakir Hussain vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1677 Gua

                                                                               Page No. 1/3

GAHC010020312014




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
                                 Case No. : WP(C)/6954/2014

            MD. ZAKIR HUSSAIN
            PROPRIETOR OF M/S MARAMI TRADERS S/O LT. INAMUL MAZID R/O
            DAKHIN GAON, KAHILIPARA, NEAR BURA MASJID, HOUSE NO. 4,
            GUWAHATI- 781019, DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM.

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
            REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
            HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006, ASSAM.

            2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
             POLICE HEADQUARTERS
             ULUBARI
             GUWAHATI- 781007
            ASSAM.

            3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
             BAKSA
             DIST. BAKSA
             MUSHALPUR
            ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.G BORDOLOI
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

                                    BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                          ORDER

Date : 19.07.2021

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

Page No. 2/3

Heard Mr. S. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Talukdar, learned Junior Government Advocate for all the respondents.

The contention of the writ petitioner in the instant writ petition is that he in the name and style of his sole proprietorship concern, M/s Marami Traders Pvt. Limited had executed one hundred (100) nos. of contract works on the basis of work orders issued in his favour by the office of the respondent no. 3 (Annexure-II series to the writ petition) during the period from 2009 to 2013. The work orders were related to Motor Vehicles (M.V.), Office Expenditures (O.E.) and Miscellaneous Supplies (M.S.) including servicing/repairing of motor vehicles and delivery of various motor parts, tyres etc. After executing those contract works, the petitioner had submitted the bills in respect of those work orders. The total bill amount, according to the petitioner, was Rs. 20,60,000/-.

Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 3 and the affidavit- in-reply filed by the petitioner, Mr. Hazarika has submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the execution of the contract works. He has submitted that the petitioner has, till date, received an amount of Rs. 7,97,500/- only out of the aforesaid total outstanding dues of Rs. 20,60,000/-.

Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 3, Mr. Talukdar has, on the other hand, submitted that an amount of Rs. 10,47,376/- (= Rs. 2,08,866/- + Rs. 1,12,500/- + Rs. 7,26,710/-) has already been released in favour of the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 9,56,149/- has remained to be paid to the petitioner. The said amount could not be paid till date due to non-receipt of Government Ceiling.

From the writ petition, the affidavit-in-opposition and the affidavit-in-reply, itself found that the respondents have not denied about the execution of contract works by the petitioner on the strength of the work orders issued by the respondent no. 3. The stand of the State respondents is that out of the total outstanding dues, a part of the said amount has already been paid and the remaining part has not been paid till date due to non-receipt of Government Ceiling. From the said stand of the respondent no. 3 in the affidavit-in- opposition, it clearly transpires that the remaining amount has not been paid due to non- receipt of Government Ceiling.

Both the learned counsel have 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 Page No. 3/3

[Tamsher Ali and Ors. vs. State of Assam and Ors.], reported in 2008(4) GLT 1 (FB) and similar other 194 writ petitions. The learned Junior Government Advocate has further submitted that the respondent authorities will process the claim of the petitioner in the light of the principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgment.

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 authorities 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, if the petitioner is found entitled, 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. 3 for his doing the needful.

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

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant