Allowed

Muslim Ali v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Sept 2019WP(C)/4625/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Bench of the Gauhati High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging unauthorized deductions of Rs.13,31,306 as forest royalty from the petitioner's bills. Relying on a Division Bench judgment, the court held that such deductions lacked statutory or contractual basis and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to refund Rs.13,31,306 within three months, with steps to retrieve money if already remitted to Forest Department.

Muslim Ali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010136342017

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 4625/2017

¶5

1:MUSLIM ALI

¶6

S/O. LT. MAKBUL ALI, R/O. SUNDARBORI, GHY.-14, P.S. JALUKBARI, DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE COMM. and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. ROADS, DISPUR, GHY.-06.

¶10

2:COMMISSIONER and SPL. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. ROADS DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶11

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. ROADS ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM.

¶12

4:SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PWD ROADS NALBARI ROAD CIRCLE NALBARI.

¶13

5:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROADS NALBARI STATE ROAD DIVISION NALBARI

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.P SARMAH

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶18

ORDER

¶19

04.09.2019

¶20

Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Sarmah, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for all the respondents.

¶21

Aggrieved by deduction of an amount of Rs.13,31,306/- from the bills of the petitioner towards forest royalty pertaining to the work executed by him for “Metalling and Blacktopping of Road from Dr. Fakaruddin Ali Ahmed Path to Doulgobindapur via Nalbari Hindu Smashan, Nalbari along with Pucca Drain and RCC Slab culverts under NLCPR in Nalbari District under Nalbari State Road Division”, the present petition has been filed inter-alia contending that there is no provision either in the statute or in the contract agreement permitting such deduction by the respondents.

¶22

By relying upon the judgment and order dated 11.06.2009 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.5258/2007 as affirmed by the judgment and order dated 08.11.2012 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.316/2012, Mr. Choudhury submits that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the earlier decisions of this Court and following the order of the Division Bench, the learned Single Judge has also passed several orders in the batch of writ petitions granting similar reliefs to similarly situated writ petitioners. Under the

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

circumstances, a similar order disposing of the present writ petition by directing the refund of the deducted amount has been prayed for by the petitioner’s counsel.

¶25

It appears that in the case of Muslim Ali vs. State of Assam and others registered as Writ Appeal No.316/2012 and the batch of connected proceedings the Division Bench of this Court had held that no appropriation of money from the contractual dues would be permissible unless backed by statutory provisions or by express provisions contained in the contract agreement binding the parties to the contract.

¶26

In this case there is neither any provision in the contract agreement nor is there any statutory provision permitting the respondents to deduct any such amount from the bills of the petitioner.

¶27

Ms. Phukan, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, has also fairly submitted that the case of the petitioner would be covered by the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Muslim Ali (supra).

¶28

In view of the above, I dispose of the writ petition by allowing the prayer made by the petitioner. Consequently, the respondents are directed to refund the deducted amount from the bills of the writ petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is also made clear that in the event it is found that the deducted amount has already been deposited with the Forest Department, the concerned authority in the PWD shall take necessary steps to retrieve the said amount for the purpose of making refund to the writ petitioner.

¶29

The above exercise shall be completed within three months from the

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶32

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Muslim Ali v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muslim Ali v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renuka Gohain Boruah, Vs Surya Phukan and 4 Ors.

Sunil Industries Ltd. Vs M/S. Assam Tailoring and Anr.

M/S. P.D.Pipe Vs Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and Anr.

On the Death of Ajoram Nath His Legal Heirs Chakradhar Nath and 4 Ors. Vs Smti Basati Bala Nath and 3 Ors.

Tazamul Ali Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Dhanjit Kumar Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.