Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1741 Gua

                                                                   Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010035252020




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/1872/2020

         M/S. J.P.ENTERPRISE AND 2 ORS.
         HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT HOUSE NO.15, HENGRABARI ROAD, P.O.
         ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, P.S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, REP. BY
         ITS PROPRIETOR GAURI KALITA.

         2: M/S KAILASH ENTERPRISE

          HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT HOUSE NO.15
          HENGRABARI ROAD
          P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA
          P.S. DISPUR
          DIST. KAMRUP (M)
          ASSAM
          REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR GAURI KALITA.

         3: GAURI KALITA
          PROPRIETOR OF M/S J.P. ENTERPRISE AND M/S KAILASH ENTERPRISE
          S/O. LT. ABHIRAM KALITA
          R/O. HOUSE NO.15
          HENGRABARI ROAD
          P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA
          P.S. DISPUR
          DIST. KAMRUP (M)
         ASSAM

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
         REP. HEREIN BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF
         ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-
         781006, ASSAM.

         2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
                                                                     Page No.# 2/5

             PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT.
             WATER
             ASSAM
             HENGRABARI
             GUWAHATI
             ASSAM-781036.

            3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

             PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT.
             GUWAHATI DIVISION NO.I
             GUWAHATI-781021
             ASSAM.

            4:THE SUPERINTEND ENGINEER

             PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT.
             GUWAHATI CIRCLE
             GUWAHATI-781021
             ASSAM.

            5:THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER

             PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT.
             LOWER ASSAM ZONE

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S BORTHAKUR

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E




                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                          ORDER

Date : 30-07-2021

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

2. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Public Health Engineering (PHE) Department for all Page No.# 3/5

the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 3 is a registered contractor under the respondent PHE Department. Apart from carrying out contract works in his name, the petitioner no. 3 also carries out contract works under the PHE Department in the names of his two proprietorship firms named as M/s J.P. Enterprise [the petitioner no. 1] and M/s Kailash Enterprise [the petitioner no. 2]. It is the case of the petitioners that during the period from 2007 to 2017, a total of 193 nos. of work orders were issued in the name of the petitioner no. 3 and the two proprietorship firms by the PHE Department. The contract-works were repairing and maintenance works of urgent nature which were non-plan. It has been asserted by the petitioners that all those contract works, as are listed in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, had been completed within the stipulated periods and separate bills were submitted in respect of each of the work orders before the respondent authorities in the PHE Department. Despite submission of the bills, the respondent PHE authorities did not release the payments in respect of those bills. The petitioners had sent a legal notice dated 13.09.2019 to the respondent no. 2, calling upon him to release the amounts of the outstanding bills. Reference is made to a letter dated 30.09.2019 of the respondent no. 2 whereby a status report was sought for by the respondent no. 2 in respect of the pending outstanding dues against the works from the respondent no. 3 against the works executed by the petitioners.

4. Mr. Borthakur has also referred to Annexure-4 to the writ petition, a communication dated 20.11.2019 written by the respondent no. 5 to the respondent no. 2. Vide the said communication, the respondent no. 2 was informed about the requirement of fund in respect of the contract works Page No.# 4/5

executed by the petitioners. As the fund demand amounting to Rs. 1,41,56,889.00 was stated to be examined by four nos. of officials in the PHE Department including respondent nos. 3-5, it is the contention of the petitioners that the bills were verified and approved for payment by the respondent nos. 3-

5. Despite submission of the bills when the petitioners were not paid, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking the direction to the respondent authorities to disburse the amounts due to the petitioners for the contract works executed by them, Mr. Borthakur submits. According to the petitioners, the outstanding dues amount to Rs. 1,41,56,889.00.

5. Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PHE Department has submitted on behalf of all the respondent authorities, on instruction, that the bills submitted by the petitioners were verified. He has placed a communication dated 17.06.2021 of the respondent no. 3, addressed to the Standing Counsel, PHE Department. In the said communication, it is mentioned that the petitioner and his two firms were allotted different repairing and maintenance works of different water supply schemes which were of urgent nature and under non- plan. It is further mentioned therein that the fund demand has been submitted but the liability could not be cleared due to huge pending liabilities under non- plan. Mr. Gogoi has submitted that in view of the aforesaid fact situation, the 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 petitioners 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, Page No.# 5/5

this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to examine the claim of the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law and in the light of the directions contained in Tamsher Ali (supra).

7. The petitioner shall submit a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition with annexures, to the respondent no. 2 for doing the needful at his end. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above directions.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant