Gauhati High Court
Pachim Rangia Welfare Society vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 23 October, 2024
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010049272022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1974/2022
PACHIM RANGIA WELFARE SOCIETY
( A NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION), REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT MD. HAIDER ALI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE SAHNUR
ALI, VILL-BARAMPUR, P.O.-PITAMBER HATBAJALI, KAMRUP(R), PIN-
781354
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, PUBLIC
HEALTH ENGINEERING CUM THE MISSION DIRECTOR, SBM (G), ASSAM,
HENGRABARI, GUWAHATI-36
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING
SANITATION
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-36
3:THE CHAIRMAN
KDWSC
CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (R)
KAMRUP
AMINGAON
4:THE MEMBER SECRETARY
KDWSC
CUM EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(PHE) GUWAHATI DIVISION NO. I
5:THE ASSOCIATE MEMBER SECRETARY
KDWSC
Page No.# 2/3
CUM EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHE)
RANGIA DIVISION
RANGIA
6:THE CHAIRMAN GUIYA VWSC
CUM PRESIDENT GUIYA GAON PANCHAYAT
7:THE MEMBER SECRETARY
GUIYA GAON PANCHAYAT
WATER SANITATION COMMITTE
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K SARMA, MR D KALITA,MR H J TAMULI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E, GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
23.10.2024
Heard Mr. D. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. I. Borthakur,
learned counsel appears for the PHE Department.
2. The case of the petitioner, a Non-Government Organization [NGO], is that
the respondent no. 7 issued a work order dated 21.03.2017 in its favour, for
construction of 21 nos. of low cost individual household latrines @ ₹ 12,000/-
under Sashwa Bharat Mission. After receipt of the work order, the petitioner
executed the said work and submitted its final bill dated 13.11.2017 for an
amount of ₹ 2,52,000/-. When despite a lapse of sufficient time, the petitioner
had not been given the outstanding dues of ₹ 2,52,000/-, the petitioner
approached this Court by this writ petition.
3. Mr. I. Borthakur, learned counsel for the PHE Department submits that
though instructions have been received with regard to the present writ petition,
Page No.# 3/3
the instructions received are vague and despite clarifications being sought for,
clarifications have not been given till date by the State respondents.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
5. It is seen that despite the writ petition having been filed on 09.03.2022,
the State respondents have not given any specific answers to the claim made by
the petitioner, even after a lapse of more than 2½ years. Consequently, this
Court is of the view that the respondents would have to verify the claim of the
petitioner in terms of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Tamsher
Ali and Etc. Etc Vs. State of Assam and Ors , reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1.
6. The respondent No.2 is accordingly directed to verify the claim of the
petitioner and take a decision on the same, within a period of 2(two) months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the respondent No.2
comes to a finding that the petitioner is to be paid some outstanding amount,
the said payment should be made to him within a further period of 2(two)
months. All the respondents are directed to ensure that the funds for payment
of the outstanding admitted liability, if any, is made available for payment, in the
event the respondent No.2 comes to a finding that the petitioner is entitled to
some outstanding amount.
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
