[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Sri Guljar Hussain Choudhury vs State Of Assam And Ors on 4 May, 2026
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010028402026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/837/2026
SRI GULJAR HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY
S/O- MAKLISUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY.
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NITAINAGAR,
P.O. AND P.S. - RATABARI,DISTRICT - KARIMGANJ, ASSAM
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS (ROADS) DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR,GUWAHATI - 6
2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
ESTT-B BRANCH (CONFIDENTIAL CELL) PWRD
DISPUR
GUWAHATI - 6
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (BORDER ROADS)
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI - 3
4:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
PWD (ROADS)
CACHAR CIRCLE
SILCHAR.
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWRD
R.K. NAGAR
T.R. DIVISION
R. K. NAGAR
Page No.# 2/7
DIST. - SRIBHUMI
ASSAM
6:MD. MONSUR AHMED
S/O- NAYEEM UDDIN AHMED.
RESIDENT OF - MAIDIHI
WARD NO. 1
SETTLEMENT ROAD
DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
PIN - 78871
Advocate for the Petitioner : A B T HAQUE, J. ROY,MR. D P BORAH,MS. P DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, A GOSWAMI(R6),MR. D J DAS(R6),MR. P
MAHANTA(R6)
Linked Case : WP(C)/4887/2025
SRI GULJAR HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY
S/O MAKLISUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY R/O VILL NITAINAGAR PO AND PS
RATABARI DIST SRIBHUMI ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF
ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI 6
2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM ESTT B BRANCH CONFIDENTIAL CELL PWRD
DISPUR GUWAHATI 6
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER BORDER ROADS
ASSAM
CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 3
4:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
PWD ROADS CACHAR CIRCLE
SILCHAR
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Page No.# 3/7
PWRD
R K NAGAR T R DIVISION R K NAGAR DIST SRIBHUMI ASSAM
6:MONSUR AHMED
S/O NAYEEM UDDIN AHMED R/O MAIDIHI WARD NO. 1 STEELEMENT
ROAD DIST SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788712
------------
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. DP Borah
Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. P Nayak,
Addl. Advocate General Assam
Mr. DJ Das for respondent No.8
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
04.05.2026
Both the writ petitions raise serious issues as regards unscrupulous actions
on the part of certain Officials of the PWD. This aspect could be seen from the
fact that while the private respondent herein was initially awarded a contract for
construction of a road, the said contract was terminated by an order dated
09.12.2020 on the ground that the private respondent, herein could not
complete the work within time stipulated. The private respondent thereupon
approached this Court assailing that he did not receive any show cause notice or
directions for carrying out the work, more particularly, taking into account the
Page No.# 4/7
period mentioned was during the COVID times. The said writ petition was
numbered as WP(C) No.2243/2021.
2. It was further alleged in the said writ petition that not only the contract of
the private respondent was terminated by the order dated 09.12.2020, but also
the petitioner herein was awarded a contract for the balance work at a price of
Rs.3,74,32,991/-, which included construction value of Rs.3,57,85,072 and
maintenance of Rs.16,48,919/- respectively without issuance of any tender.
3. It further appears from the judgment and order dated 03.11.2022 passed
in WP(C)No.2243/2021 that during the course of hearing of the said writ
petition, a report was called from the Chief Engineer, PWD. The Report was
submitted by the Additional Chief Engineer on 06.04.2022.
4. The learned Coordinate Bench in the judgment recorded certain details of
the report submitted. The following particulars of the Report being relevant are
enumerated hereinunder:
(A). On 08.02.2021, which is the date of issuance of the Letter of
Acceptance to the petitioner herein, the date of commencement was recorded in
the Measurement Book;
(B). The last date for measurement was recorded on 22.02.2021;
(C). Bill amount of Rs.1,91,18,264/- was passed by the Executive Engineer
on 24.02.2021.
(D). Work Order was issued to the petitioner on 20.02.2021.
(E). On 26.05.2021, the entire work was completed by the petitioner.
5. The learned Coordinate Bench vide the judgment and order dated
30.11.2022 disposed of the said writ petition by not interfering with the
Page No.# 5/7
termination order issued to the private respondent dated 09.12.2020, but on the
other hand, directed the respondent authorities to make an enquiry as regards
the role of the erring Officials, which is mentioned in the enquiry report dated
06.04.2022. Steps were also being directed to be taken against any other
officials, including the beneficiaries.
6. It is very pertinent to mention that in the said judgment and order, the
learned Coordinate Bench did not interfere with the work order which was
issued in favour of the petitioner, as it prima facie appears.
7. This Court is, however, shocked and surprised to see that thereupon
another enquiry report surfaces by which it is mentioned that the work which
was allotted to the petitioner was without any tender. It further mentions in the
said enquiry report that the private respondent had also not been issued any
notice prior to the termination. It is also mentioned in the said enquiry report
that during the inspection which was carried out on 29.12.2022, it was found
that only 65% of the work was complete.
8. It is apposite herein to mention that a report dated 06.04.2022 was earlier
submitted before this Court wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner
completed the same work on 26.05.2021.
9. Be that as it may, based upon the said enquiry report, this time the PWD
authorities issued a communication to the private respondent to complete the
remaining work at Rs.5.17 crores. The issuance of the letters dated 19.01.2026
and 28.01.2026 in favour of the private respondent are the subject matter of
challenge in WP(C)No.837/2026.
10. When the writ petition was listed before this Court on 16.02.2026, the
learned Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order thereby staying the
Page No.# 6/7
Office letters dated 19.01.2026 and 28.01.2026, which have been issued to the
private respondent.
11. It is also very relevant to take note of that the petitioner had also filed
another writ petition, which was registered and numbered as
WP(C)No.4887/2025, wherein the petitioner had challenged certain actions
which is sought to be taken by the PWD officials and there is an interim order
passed therein that no coercive measures should be taken against the petitioner.
12. The materials on record, and more particularly the respective submissions
made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, raises serious
issues of misappropriation at the cost of public exchequer, inasmuch as, on one
hand, in the report submitted before this Court, it is mentioned that the work
was completed on 26.05.2021, and on the other hand, a further enquiry shows
that 35% of the work was yet to be completed for which the private respondent
is now asked to complete the work at a contract value of 5.17 crores.
13. Taking into account the above, this Court, therefore, directs the private
respondent herein to bring on record his stand by filing the affidavit.
14. List these matters again on 21.05.2026 at 2 PM for further hearing.
15. In the meantime, the affidavit be filed on or before 18.05.2026.
16. The Registry is directed to tag the disposed of writ petition being
WP(C)No.2243/2021 with the present proceedings.
17. The PWD Authorities are put to Notice that in the circumstance,
discrepancies are noticed in the Report submitted before this Court in
WP(C)No.2243/2021, this Court would initiate appropriate proceedings against
the erring Official.
Page No.# 7/7
18. Let the Registry provide a copy of this order to Mr. P Nayak, the learned
Addl. Advocate General, Assam for bringing the instant order to the Notice of
the PWD authorities.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
