M/S Manaranjan Brahma Enterprise vs The Bodoland Territorial Council ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1835 Gua

                                                                Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010099752022




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

                           Case No. : WP(C)/3478/2022

         M/S MANARANJAN BRAHMA ENTERPRISE
         HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DOLAIGAON, UJANPARA,
         BONGAIGAON, ASAM, PIN-783380,
         REP. BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR
         MANARANJAN BRAHMA


         VERSUS

         THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL AND 5 ORS (B)
         REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
         KOKRAJHAR, BODOFA NWGWR, BTR, ASSAM,
         PIN-783370

         2:THE SECRETARY

          BTC
          WPT ND BC DEPARTMENT

         KOKRAJHAR
         BODOFA NWGWR
         BTR
         ASSAM
         PIN-783370

         3:THE ADDL. DIRECTOR
          BTC
         WPT AND BC DEPARTMENT

         KOKRAJHAR
         BODOFA NWGWR
         BTR
         ASSAM
         PIN-783370
                                                                             Page No.# 2/4


            4:THE BDO
             DOTOMA DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
             NAWARBHITA
             BAKSA
             BTR
            ASSAM
             PIN-783347

            5:THE BDO
             KOKRAJHAR DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
             KOKRAJHAR
             BTR
            ASSAM
             PIN-783370

            6:THE BDO
             KOCHUGAON DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
             KANUPARA
             KOKRAJHAR
             BTR
            ASSAM
            PIN-78336

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. N J KHATANIAR

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC




                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

                                         ORDER

27.05.2022 In this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a prayer has been made for a direction to the authorities for payment of balance contractual bills for supply of Mosquito Nets in the BTC area. The prayer which otherwise look innocuous however would require some further consideration in view of the amounts claimed and for the works supply involved.

2. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the total bill was for Rs.31,50,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Crores and Fifty Lakh) out of which it is stated that Page No.# 3/4

Rs.13,00,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Crores) have been paid with remaining balance of Rs.18,50,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Crores and Fifty Lakh).

3. It is a matter of astonishment that the said bill have been raised for works of supply of Mosquito Nets in three Development Blocks namely, Dotoma Development Block where the quantity supplied has been said to be one lakh, Kokrajhar Development Block quantity supplied two lakh and Kochugaon Development Block quantity supplied one lakh and fifty thousand. The aforesaid communications which are dated 08.11.2017 issued by the Additional Director-cum-Council Head of Department, WPT and BD Department to the petitioner, however does not mention any rate.

4. Shri RK Musahary, learned Standing Counsel, BTC has placed before this Court an order dated 15.11.2021 whereby to deal with matters of non-payment of bills to contractors for works done / supply made, a Committee has been formed in terms of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Tamsher Ali and ors. Vs. State of Assam reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1. Though there is an easy course for this Court to refer the matter to the said Committee, the amount involved in this case raises grave doubt and suspicious, more so, when the amount involved is public money paid by the tax payers. It is not at all fathomable to accept that for supply of Mosquito Nets in three blocks, the grave price can be Rs.31,50,00,000/-.

5. In that view of the matter, this Court had requested the learned Advocate General, Assam, Shri D. Saikia for assistance.

6. The learned AG, Assam has fairly submitted the issue involved is a serious one which may require some enquiry by the competent authority. This Court is also of the opinion that public money cannot be allowed to be siphoned off in the manner which prima facie appears from the facts and circumstances of the present case.

7. In that view of the matter, let a Committee be constituted by three competent officials from the Department of Home, Finance and WPT and BC Department along Page No.# 4/4

with involvement of Principal Secretary, BTC.

8. At this stage, the learned AG, Assam has suggested that the Committee can be constituted in the following manner- Principal Secretary, Finance Department - Chairman, Principal Secretary, BTR - Member Secretary, Commissioner & Secretary, Home and Political Department - Member, Commissioner & Secretary, WPT and BC Department - Member. The Committee constituted shall examine the aspect of this matter and submit the report after taking into consideration all the relevant materials including recording of statements.

9. It is made clear that the functions and jurisdiction of the aforesaid Committee would not be restricted to the present case also but would look into all other cases where the demand for paying of so-called pending bills for works done / supplies made in the BTC is Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) and above.

10. To facilitate the Committee to make the enquiry, the authorities of the BTC namely, Principal Secretary shall direct that all such claims of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) or more be routed through the Committee and consequential steps be taken only after report of the Committee.

11. The Committee shall make an endeavor to complete the enquiry expeditiously and report thereof may be submitted in the Registry of this Court in a sealed cover, preferably within a period of 2(two) months.

12. List this case after 2(two) months.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant