Page No.# 1/9 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 8 December, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                    Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010082652022




                                                           2025:GAU-AS:16916

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

                        Case No. : WP(C)/2875/2022

         MUSLIM ALI
         SON OF LATE MAKBUL ALI
         R/O SUNDARBARI
         P.S. JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI-14, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
         REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
         TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

         2:THE DIRECTOR
         TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-781006

         3:LAKHIPUR MUNICIPAL BOARD

          (ERSTWHILE LAKHIPUR TOWN COMMITTEE)
          LAKHIPUR
          DIST. GOALPARA
          ASSAM
          REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
          PIN-783129

         4:THE CHAIRMAN

         LAKHIPUR MUNICIPAL BOARD
         LAKHIPUR
         DIST. GOALPARA
         ASSAM
         PIN-783129
                                                                     Page No.# 2/9


           5:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER

            LAKHIPUR MUNICIPAL BOARD
            LAKHIPUR
            DIST. GOALPARA
            ASSAM
            PIN-783129

           6:THE SITE ENGINEER

            LAKHIPUR MUNICIPAL BOARD

           LAKHIPUR
           DIST. GOALPARA
           ASSAM
           PIN-78312

                                    BEFORE
            HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

For the petitioner (s)   : Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate
                           Mr. P. Sarma, Advocate

For the respondent (s)   : Mr. K. Gogoi, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate

Mr. B. Gogoi, Advocate

Date on which judgment is reserved : NA

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08.12.2025

Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : NA

Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes

Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on Page No.# 3/9

behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent Authorities to make payment of an amount of Rs.4,59,01,594.92p to the petitioner through the RA bill in respect of the works already completed.

3. The case of the petitioner as could be seen from the materials on record is that the respondent Lakhipur Town Committee had entered into a contract with the petitioner for construction of four numbers of town roads including RCC Culverts and Pucca Drainage at Lakhipur Town under NLCPR for the year 2012-13 at a total contractual consideration of Rs.14,16,33,444/-.

4. Pursuant to entering into the contract, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had completed 95% of the work. However, inspite of the bills being submitted from time to time, the petitioner's bill amounts have not been released since October, 2020 to the tune of Rs.4,59,01,594.92p. In that regard, the petitioner had also submitted a representation on Page No.# 4/9

29.01.2022. However, as the said representation remained unconsidered, the petitioner had therefore approached this Court by filing the writ petition.

5. It is seen that the respondent Lakhipur Town Committee had filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is categorically stated that the project in question was supposed to be completed within 18 months and the contractor was handed over the site on 15.05.2015. But the contractor delayed in starting the work. It is further mentioned that the Executive Officer, Lakhipur Town Committee had issued letters to the contractor for providing an explanation in delaying to start the work after the site was handed over to the contractor. Further to that, it is mentioned that the contractor only started the work on 08.10.2015. It is also alleged in the said affidavit-in-opposition that there was slow progress of the work by the contractor for which various notices were issued to speed up the work.

6. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, there is also allegation that the work done by the petitioner was of poor quality and notices were issued to the petitioner for rectifying six faults with earth filling, sand gravel, blacktopping. It is also alleged that the petitioner had been granted 10 extensions from time to time and the last extension expired on 31.10.2022. It is also stated more particularly at paragraph No.3(i) that the petitioner had only Page No.# 5/9

completed 84% of the project work and the claim which the petitioner has made exceeds even the estimated value.

7. Pursuant to the filing of the affidavit-in-opposition, the petitioner had also filed an affidavit-in-reply wherein the petitioner admitted that the work in question could not be completed, but the reason for non-completion was on account of the fault of the respondent Lakhipur Town Committee.

8. This Court, on the basis of the pleadings has also heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

9. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had carried out the work to the extent of 95%, and as such, the petitioner is entitled to the amount as claimed to the tune of Rs.4,59,01,594.92p which the Respondent Authorities have not paid. He further submitted that the stand so taken now by the Lakhipur Town Committee is contrary to their stand in the resolution adopted on 08.08.2022 in the Minutes of the PIC Meeting for discussion about the progress of the work in question. He therefore submitted that the Respondent Authorities were duty bound to carry out the necessary verification and make payment to the petitioner against the running account bills which the respondents have not done so since October, 2020 to Page No.# 6/9

the prejudice of the petitioner.

10. Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Lakhipur Town Committee, however, submitted that the petitioner had breached the terms of the contract in as much as the contract period was for 18 months and the work remains still uncompleted. He further submitted that the work in question was started by the petitioner on 08.10.2015 and till date, the work has not yet been completed to the prejudice of the public of the Lakhipur Town Committee. In addition to that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Lakhipur Town Committee further submitted that this is a project where it is partly funded by the Central Government which is duly mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition, and as such, without the Central Government being made a party, the petitioner cannot succeed.

11. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

12. From the materials on record, it is clearly seen that there are disputes as regards the entitlement of the petitioner. On one hand, the petitioner claims that the petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs.4,59,01,594.92p pertaining to the work completed by the petitioner. On the other hand, the Respondent Authorities Page No.# 7/9

alleged that the petitioner has breached the terms of the contract and thereby causing great prejudice to the public in question. In addition to that, there are also dispute as to how much amount of work has been completed by the petitioner.

13. Considering the above, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that this Court is not in a position to direct the Respondent Authorities to pay the amount of Rs.4,59,01,594.92p to the petitioner as has been sought for.

14. Be that as it may, it is also the opinion of this Court that if the petitioner has duly completed certain works and has submitted a representation, it is the bounden duty of the Respondent Authorities also to inform the petitioner as regards the outcome of the claim so made by the petitioner. It has also been alleged that the petitioner has not received any amount since the month of October, 2020.

15. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that certain directions can be passed for carrying out necessary verification as regards the petitioner's entitlement and make payments if the petitioner is found to be entitled as per the provisions of the contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondent Lakhipur Municipal Board. It is also the opinion of this Court that such entitlement of the petitioner is to Page No.# 8/9

be looked into taking into consideration whether the respondents have also claim against the petitioner for the alleged breach.

16. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:-

(i) The Respondent Authorities, more particularly the Lakhipur Town Committee shall verify as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any amount in respect to the contract in question.

(ii) While carrying out the said verification, the Respondent Authorities can also take into account any breach committed by the petitioner and the resultant effect as per the terms and conditions of the contract.

(iii) The said verification be completed within a period of 6(six) months from the date the petitioner submits a certified copy of the present judgment to the respondent No.4.

(iv) It is further observed that upon verification being conducted in the manner aforesaid, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to any amount, the said amount be paid to the petitioner within the aforesaid said timeframe of six months.

(v) It is further directed that the respondent Nos.2 to 6 Page No.# 9/9

shall in any case inform the petitioner about the verification carried out and the result of such verification within six months for the date the certified copy of the judgment is served upon the respondent No.4.