Disposed

Babul Chowdhury v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Mar 2021WP(C)/2959/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition where a petitioner-contractor challenged an order for short closing his contract due to fund shortage. The matter was disposed of at the admission stage by directing the Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for extending the completion period as only about 5% of the work remained.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by directing the appropriate authority to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.12.2020 for extending the period of completion.

Babul Chowdhury Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010100482020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2959/2020

¶5

BABUL CHOWDHURY

¶6

S/O LT. BHIMSAN CHOUDHURY, R/O D.T.S. HILL COLONY, P.O. AND P.S. LUMDING DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN-782447

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAYS, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781011

¶9

2:THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAYS MALIGAON GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781012 3:THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAYS MANAGER N.F. RAILWAYS LUMDING DIVISION LUMDING DIST. HOJAI ASSAM PIN-782447 4:THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (III) N.F. RAILWAYS LUMDING DIVISION LUMDING DIST. HOJAI ASSAM PIN-782447

¶10

5:THE SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER (WORKS) N.F. RAILWAYS

¶11

Page No.# 2/3

¶12

LUMDING DIVISION LUMDING DIST. HOJAI ASSAM PIN-782447 6:THE SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER (WORKS) N.F. RAILWAYS MAIBONG DIST. DIMAHASAO ASSAM PIN-78883

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : ALHAJJ INAM UDDIN

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NF RLY

¶15

BEFORE

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶17

ORDER

¶18

09-03-2021

¶19

Heard Shri A. I. Uddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri B. K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel, Railways.

¶20

In view of the fact that a broad consensus has been arrived at in the Bar, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

¶21

The petitioner who is a contractor with the Railways is aggrieved by an order dated 12.07.2020 whereby the contract which was awarded to the petitioner was short closed for shortage of funds. Though various grounds have been cited in the writ petition in support of the challenge, Shri Das, the learned counsel for the Railways however submits that there was inordinate delay leading to shortage of funds and the action was taken in bona fide exercise of powers.

¶22

Be that as it may, this Court vide an order dated 03.08.2020 had made an observation that since there was an apprehension of the petitioner that the balance work would be done by a third party, the same would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The said order was extended on 11.08.2020 while issuing notice.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that de hors the issuance of the impugned

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

order dated 10.01.2020, after filing of this writ petition, the balance work was again allotted to the writ petitioner and in the meantime he has made sufficient progress. It is further submitted that the petitioner has made a representation for extending the period of completion till 31^st March, 2021. In this connection, a copy of the said representation dated 30.12.2020 is placed before this Court from where it appears that the Senior Section Engineer (Works) NF Railways has forwarded the same to the appropriate authority. The learned counsel submits that since only about 5% of the work is remaining, he is hopeful that his representation would be favourably considered.

¶26

Shri Das, the learned Standing Counsel, Railways however fairly submits that he is not aware about the said development of filing of representation or forwarding of the same to the appropriate authority. He however does not object to the proposal of the petitioner that the writ petition may be closed with a direction for consideration of the representation as only about 5% of the work remains to be completed.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of by molding the relief to the extent of directing the appropriate authority to consider the prayer of the petitioner as made in the representation dated 30.12.2020 which has been duly forwarded and pass appropriate speaking order.

¶28

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶29

A copy of the representation dated 30.12.2020 alongwith the proforma is made part of the records.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Babul Chowdhury v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babul Chowdhury v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hasan Raja Laskar and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Bipin Pegu and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Kamal Borah and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Momita Das Vs the Chief Secretary , Government of Assam and 5 Ors.

Syeda Jurima Ahmeda Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Julee Sinha @ Julee Singha Vs State of Assam and 10 Ors.