[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 6 March, 2026
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010042182026
2026:GAU-AS:3367
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1217/2026
SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, PROPRIETOR- SANJAY KUMAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O- LATE BALRAM SINGH, R/O- CHIRWAPATHY
ROAD, TINSUKIA, P.O- TINSUKIA, ASSAM- 786125.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD
TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, PARYAVARAN BHAWAN, 1, SANSAD MARG,
NEW DELHI- 110001
2:NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD. (NHIDCL)
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
3RD FLOOR
PTI BUILDING
4 PARLIAMENT STREET
NEW DELHI- 110001
3:THE GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECTS)
NHIDCL
SARAF TOWER
1ST FLOOR
OPP. DON BOSCO SCHOOL
MAZGAON
TEZPUR- 784001
ASSAM
4:M/S RISHA INFRASTRUCTURE
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR/AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
B.K KAKATI ROAD
Page No.# 2/5
JAY JAY TOWER
GUWAHATI- 78100
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., MR H AGARWAL,MS. B
SOREN,MS M ZOMUANPUII,MR J SINGH,MR H AGARWAL,MRS J M KONWAR
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MS M NIROLA (R2, R3),MR. P J SAIKIA, SR. ADV (R2,
R3),SC, NHIDC
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 06.03.2026
Heard Mr. H. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. M. Nirola, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3.
2. In view of the request made by the learned counsel for the afore-mentioned parties to
take up the writ petition for final consideration, the writ petition is taken up for consideration.
Mr. Saikia has submitted that as on date, there has not been any formation of contract with
the respondent no. 4 and therefore, the writ petition can be taken up dispensing with the
appearance of the respondent no. 4.
3. It is the case of the petitioner, in brief, that the petitioner was awarded a EPC
Contract : 'Constitution of Service Road and RCC Drain on both sides of NH-37A from
Kaliabor-Tiniali [Km 0.000] to Kolong Bridge [Km 0.600] in Nagaon District, Assam under EPC
Mode' ['the Contract-Work', for short] pursuant to his selection as the successful bidder in the
competitive bidding process initiated for award of the Contract-Work.
4. The petitioner has approached this Court by the instant writ petition to assail an Order
of Suspension dated 24.02.2026 and has contended that the balance work has been illegally
allotted to the respondent no. 4 invoking Clause 22 of the Contract Agreement without any
Page No.# 3/5
prior notice to the petitioner.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has already achieved physical progress
to the extent of 97.5% and the value of the balance 2.5% work is only Rs. 7,50,000/-. But,
the respondent NHIDCL authorities have suspended the Contract-Work and by preventing the
petitioner from executing the remaining 2.5% part of the Contract-Work, the respondent
NHIDCL authorities have allotted the balance 2.5% work to the respondent no. 4 at a
contract value of Rs. 39,53,182/- which is exhorbitant. It is further submitted that, subject to
availability of the materials, the petitioner could have completed the remaining part within a
period of one week.
6. Mr. Agarwal has further submitted that the petitioner in Paragraph-33 has categorically
stated that though the respondent NHIDCL authorities vide Communication dated 25.02.2026
have projected that the respondent no. 4 has commenced execution of the balance work with
effect from 25.02.2026, but, the respondent no. 4 has not commenced any measurable work
at the project site till the filing of the writ petition.
7. Mr. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent NHIDCL authorities
has submitted that the petitioner had failed to execute the Contract-Work within the
scheduled time-period and the extension periods. Notwithstanding the claims made by the
petitioner as regards the percentage of work he has carried out so far, if the petitioner gives
an undertaking that he would complete the remaining part of the Contract-Work within a
period of fifteen days then the respondent NHIDCL authorities would keep the order of
suspension in abeyance for such period of fifteen days so that the petitioner can complete the
remaining part of the Contract-Work.
8. In response, Mr. Agarwal has submitted that he has received clear instruction from his
client that the petitioner would be able to complete the remaining part of the Contract-Work
within a period of twenty days from today as per the Contract Value and such period includes
the period required for mobilization of manpower, machinery and materials. He has further
submitted, on instruction, the petitioner will not take any plea regarding non-availability of
manpower, machinery, materials, etc. or any other plea including any plea for any
Page No.# 4/5
enhancement of the Contract Value in the event he fails to execute the remaining part of the
Contract-Work within the period of twenty days from today and then the respondent NHIDCL
authorities would be at liberty to proceed further in terms of the Contract Agreement and to
execute the remaining part of the Contract-Work as per Letter dated 24.02.2026 [Annexure-
15 to the writ petition].
9. In view of such submission made by Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner to
grant a period of twenty days to execute the remaining part of the Contract-Work at the
Contract Value agreed to by the petitioner, Mr. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel has submitted
that taking into consideration the forthcoming monsoon season and the other procedure
involved, the respondent NHIDCL is agreeable to the undertaking given by the petitioner to
execute the remaining part of the Contract-Work to achieve 100% progress within a period of
twenty days from today, that is, on or before 27.03.2026 and for the said period, the order of
suspension would be treated as an order kept in abeyance. He has further submitted that in
the event of default of any nature on the part of the petitioner-Contractor, the order of
suspension would stand revived and the NHIDCL would proceed to take further action in
terms of the Contract Agreement and if required, to execute the remaining part of the
Contract-Work through the respondent no. 4 or any other party as per extant procedure.
10. Taking note of the above submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this
Court is of the view that there is no necessity to keep the writ petition pending anymore.
11. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to act in
accordance with the undertaking, as recorded above. The respondent NHIDCL authorities
would allow the petitioner to proceed for executing the remaining part of the Contract-Work
on or before 27.03.2026, to the satisfaction of the respondent NHIDCL authorities. It is
observed that in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner as the Contractor to execute
the Contract-Work fully on or before 27.03.2026, the respondent NHIDCL would be at liberty
to take further action in terms of the submission made by Mr. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel
for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3, as recorded above, and in view of the undertaking made by
the petitioner, without any further reference to this Court.
Page No.# 5/5
12. This Order disposes of the writ petition. Interim order passed earlier stands merged
with this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
