Manipur High Court
Mr. Lelien Doungel vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 29 September, 2021
LAISHRAM Digitally signed by
LAISHRAM
DHAKESH DHAKESHORI DEVI
Date: 2021.10.04
ORI DEVI 14:30:34 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 649 of 2021
Mr. Lelien Doungel, aged about 52 years, S/o Mr. Seipao of
Chiengkawupang, P.O. & P.S. Churachandpur, Churachandpur
District, Manipur - 795128.
...Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner,
Water Resource Department, Government of Manipur, New
Secretariat Building, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795001.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resource Department,
Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795001.
3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department,
Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001.
4. The Executive Engineer, Khuga Canal Division No. 1, IFC
Department, Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S.
Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur 795128.
...Respondents
(VIDEO CONFERENCE)
B EF O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH
ORDER
29-09-2021
[1] Heard Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner.
[2] According to the petitioner, he is a registered Contractor by
profession and had executed many works in the State of Manipur to the
satisfaction of the concerned authorities. There was no any allegation
against him that he had not executed the contract works awarded to him.
[3] Two work orders dated 05-04-2010 were issued by the Respondent
No.4 in respect of 2 (two) works-one, KIP, L-Earth Work (Restoration of
right side main canal bank from RD 8740m. to 8805m.) for an amount of
Rs.11,64,622/- and two, KIP, L-Earth Work (Commissioning of Khuga
Project, renovation of right side main canal from RD 18860m. to 20540m.)
for an amount of Rs.81,96,929/- in favour of the petitioner.
[4] After the execution of the said 2 (two) works being completed by
the petitioner within the stipulated time to the satisfaction of the authority,
the same had been inaugurated by the authority. But the Respondents did
not release his bill for a sum of Rs.93,61,551/- (Rupees ninety three lakhs
sixty one thousand five hundred and fifty one) only for the execution of the
said works. Having no alternative, the petitioner submitted a representation
dated 05-02-2014 to the Respondent No.1 for releasing the bills for the
execution of the said 2 (two) works.
[5] As no action was taken from the side of the respondents for
releasing the undisputed bill amount, the petitioner filed a writ petition
being WP(C) No.452 of 2014 before this Court for issuing appropriate
direction for payment of the undisputed bill amount of Rs.93,61,551/-
(Rupees ninety three lakhs sixty one thousand five hundred and fifty one)
only for the execution of the said 2 (two) works. This Court vide its order
dated 03-11-2014, disposed of the same with the following direction:
"It has been stated at the bar that the present writ Petition is
squarely covered by the full bench decision of the Gauhati High
Court dated 29/09/2008 rendered in W.P. (C) No. 2277 of 2008
and others. In view of that the present writ Petition is disposed of
under the same terms and conditions provided in the aforesaid
full bench judgment and other."
[6] Despite the order dated 03-11-2014 being communicated upon the
respondents for compliance, they did not take any step to comply with the
order dated 03-11-2014 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.452 of 2014.
The petitioner, by engaging an advocate by the name of Shri Ch. Nikel
Singh, filed Contempt Case (C) No.155 of 2014 before this Court for the
initiation of a contempt proceeding against the respondents.
[7] Recently, when the petitioner approached the concerned authorities
for payment of his bill amounting to Rs.93,61,551/- for executing the
aforesaid 2 (two) works, he was informed by the officials of the Water
Resource Department that a verification was done by the Executive
Engineer and that an order dated 17-08-2015 was issued by the Chief
Engineer, I & FCD stating that the petitioner was not entitled to claim for
the final bills for the execution of the said works. Thereafter, the contempt
Case (C) No.155 of 2015 was closed on 08-10-2018 in the absence of the
petitioner's counsel
[8] The petitioner contacted Shri Ch. Nickel, Advocate to enquire about
the matter but he was found in the state of paralysis, because of which he
did not appear before this Court, when the contempt case was listed for
consideration. No information was also provided to the petitioner by his
advocate.
[9] The petitioner begs to submit that the verification in connection with
the aforesaid two works was done by the authorities in the absence of the
petitioner and as such, he could not apprise the fact situation to the
authorities while conducting the verification nor could he produce any
document/ record to show that the petitioner had completed the aforesaid
two works. It is worthwhile to mention here that no notice was served upon
the petitioner for his appearance at the time of verification. In order to
ventilate his grievances, the petitioner submitted a representation to the
Hon'ble Minister, Water Resource Department; the respondent Nos.1 and
2 wherein he pointed out that the said 2 (two) works, executed by him,
were completed within a stipulated period and that at the time of doing the
verification by the authority, the petitioner was not informed at all. In his
said representation, a request was made to the authority to review the
order dated 17-08-2015 issued the Chief Engineer, IFC Department (now
renamed as Water Resource Department} after doing re-verification in
presence of the petitioner. The Under Secretary, Water Resource
Department vide a letter dated 27-11-2020, directed the respondent No.2
to furnish a detail report with respect to the representation submitted by the
petitioner. The said representation submitted by the petitioner for re-
verification in presence of the petitioner is still pending for disposal by the
authority.
[10] Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the
instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds that
as the verification report was made in the absence of the petitioner, he
could not apprise the authority that he had already executed the said 2
(two) works and even the said works after completion had been
inaugurated by the authority. No information was provided to the petitioner
by the authority that a verification would be done in respect of the said 2
(two) works executed by the petitioner. If an enquiry is to be made by the
authority, notice ought to be given to the person who is going to be
aggrieved by the action of the authority.
[11] When the matter is taken up for consideration, it has been submitted
by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the instant writ petition can
be disposed of by issuing an innocuous order and accordingly, the instant
writ petition stands disposed of with the direction that the respondents shall
consider the representation submitted by the petitioner in the month of
October, 2020 and dispose of the same within a period of one month from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order by issuing a speaking in respect
thereof.
JUDGE
Victoria
