Dismissed

Shankar Roy v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Dec 2021WP(C)/2310/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner had already instituted a money suit for the same relief which was dismissed by the Civil Court. The Court held that it cannot assume jurisdiction under Article 226 where the civil suit has attained finality and the proper remedy was an appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is not entertained and dismissed.

Shankar Roy Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010020032017

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2310/2017

¶5

SHANKAR ROY

¶6

S/O LT. SUSHIL ROY R/O KARIMGANJ WARD NO. 6, LXMI BAZAR ROAD, P.O. and DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶10

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

¶11

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RURAL ROAD DIVISION CHANDMARI GUWAHATI -7.

¶12

3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶13

PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT RURAL ROAD DIVISION KARIMGANJ ASSAM P.O. P.S. and DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSA

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N H LASKAR

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶18

ORDER

¶19

07.12.2021

¶20

Heard Mr. A.H.M.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Public Works Department [PWD] for all the respondents.

¶21

The case of the petitioner, as projected in this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is, in brief that the petitioner as a contractor registered under the respondent PWD, was awarded 20 [twenty] nos. of contract works and he executed the same to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities in the respondent PWD. After execution of the said 20 [twenty] nos. of contract works, mentioned in the table in paragraph-3 of the writ petition, he submitted his final bills for those contract works. Though some part payments were made by the respondent PWD but an amount of Rs. 5,87,516/- had remained outstanding for disbursal. The petitioner as the plaintiff instituted a money suit being Money Suit no. 13/2014 claiming a decree in respect of the said outstanding amount of Rs. 5,87,516/- amongst the other reliefs. In the said money suit, the respondents herein were arrayed as the defendant no. 3, the defendant no. 2 and the defendant no. 1 respectively. The defendants filed their written statement in the said money suit. The learned Court of Civil Judge, Karimganj passed a judgment and decree on 28.09.2016 whereby the said suit was dismissed. The learned Civil Court had held that the suit was not maintainable due to lack of cause of action. It was also held that the suit was barred by the law of limitation. By holding so, the learned Civil Judge had held that the plaintiff was not entitled to get any relief, as prayed for.

¶22

The present writ petition has been preferred seeking a direction to the respondent authorities in the PWD to disburse the outstanding bill amount of Rs. 5,87,516/- in respect of the afore-mentioned contract works to the petitioner.

¶23

As has been noted above, the petitioner had approached the civil court earlier seeking the same relief by instituting money suit, Money Suit no. 13/2014. The money suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2016 wherein it was held that the suit of the plaintiff had no cause of action and it was barred by the law of limitation. Hence, the petitioner ought to have been preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2016 as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure instead of approaching another jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

the decision in the money suit has already attained finality, this Court is not in a position to assume the jurisdiction which is available under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In such view of the matter, this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not entertained and the same is dismissed.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Shankar Roy v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Roy v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bimal Sen Vs Insurance Ombudsman and 2 Ors.

Tota Miah Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Kishore Jyoti Roy and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 31 Ors.

Rabia Nurjahan Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Nargis Jahan Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Ismatara Begum Laskar Vs Nargis Jahan and 5 Ors.