Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 31 October, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010256392023
2025:GAU-AS:14742
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6692/2023
DILIP HUZURI
SON OF LATE HARI NATH HUZURI,
RESIDENT OF MEGHMOLAR APARTMENT,
FLAT NO. 202, ZOO TINIALI, SURAJIT GOGOI PATH,
GUWAHATI, P.S.- GEETANAGAR,
IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(M), ASSAM,
PIN- 781024.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND
ENTREPRENEURSHIP,
GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI,
PIN- 110001.
2:THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ENTREPRENERUSHIP (IEE)
AN AUTONOMOUS ORGANISATION UNDER THE MINISTRY OF SKILL
DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
GOVT. OF INDIA
HAVING ITS HEADQUARTER AT LALMATI
BASISTHA CHARIALI
37 NH BYPASS
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781029.
3:THE DIRECTOR
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP (IEE)
Page No.# 2/5
LALMATI
BASISTHA CHARIALI
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781029.
4:THE JYOTIRGAMAYA WELFARE SOCIETY
A REGISTERED SOCIETY UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT
XXI OF 1860
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI NABAJYOTI DEKA
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HOUSE NO. 17
SANGHATI PATH
KAILASH NAGAR
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI
IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781028.
5:THE BRANCH MANAGER
INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
HEAD OFFICE- S.S. ROAD
LAKHTOKIA
GUWAHATI
IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781001
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. Hatimuria, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. R. Devi, CGC
: Mr. S. Ali, Standing Counsel
Date of Hearing : 31.10.2025
Date of Judgment : 31.10.2025
Page No.# 3/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. J. Hatimuria, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner and Mrs. R. Devi, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the
Respondent No.1, 2 and 3. I have also heard Mr. S. Ali, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.4.
2. The Petitioner herein has approached this Court on the ground that the
Respondent Authorities even after the completion of the work to the
satisfaction of the Respondent Authorities have not returned the
performance security money of an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-.
3. From the materials on record, it is seen that the Petitioner was issued a
work order on 11.01.2021 for the purpose of Civil Construction of the
Common Facility Centre (CFC) of Chenga Traditional Dress Making &
Embroidery Cluster, Chenga, Barpeta at an amount of Rs.31,92,236/-. At
Clause 4 of the said work order, it is stipulated what is the Defect Liability
Period. In terms with Sub-Clause (c) of Clause 4, it is seen that the Defect
Liability Period is 180 days or full a rainy season whichever occurs later from
the date of handing over the constructed asset.
4. The Petitioner claims that the Petitioner had handed over the site on
01.02.2022 and thereupon, the 180 days period elapsed on 30.07.2022.
However, after the Defect Liability Period being over, on 11.10.2022, an
email was sent to the Petitioner for making certain rectifications on account
Page No.# 4/5
of some alleged defects.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that
this alleged defects as was pointed out to the Petitioner vide the email dated
11.10.2022 is beyond the Defect Liability Period and as such the Respondent
Authorities cannot disentitle the Petitioner to the performance security
money of an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-.
6. Per contra, it is seen that an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the
Respondents wherein it is contended that the Defect Liability Period would
end after the completion of the rainy season and the rainy season would end
sometime in the late part of October, 2022 taking into account that the
Petitioner had handed over the site on 01.02.2022.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.4
therefore submitted that this is a case wherein the Petitioner is not entitled
to the performance security money on the ground that the Petitioner had not
rectified those defects.
8. This Court upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of
the parties, finds it relevant to observe that the question as to when the
Defect Liability Period would end being dynamic on the aspect as to when
the rainy season for the year 2022 had ended and the same can only be
adjudicated on the basis of evidence, it is the opinion of this Court that the
claim made by the Petitioner cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise
of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Page No.# 5/5
9. Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant
writ petition and accordingly, dismisses the instant writ petition.
10. Be that as it may, as this Court has not entertained the instant writ
petition on the ground that there are disputed questions which requires
adjudication in a forum wherein adjudication of facts can be adjudicated,
liberty is given to the Petitioner to file appropriate proceedings for claiming
the said amount along with interest, if so advised.
11. The dismissal of the instant writ petition however shall not prejudice
the Petitioner in such proceedings if so filed. Further to that, as the
Petitioner has been bona fidely pursuing the present writ petition, the period
from 10.11.2023 till date be excluded while computing the period of
limitation.
12. It is also observed that the order passed herein shall not debar the
Petitioner to approach the Respondents and carry out the rectification of the
defects, so that the performance security money can be released in favour of
the Petitioner.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
