Disposed

Tota Miah v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Dec 2021WP(C)/4482/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought remedy for non-payment of outstanding dues for executed contract works. Court, noting admitted shortfall due to fund paucity and citing precedent, directed respondent to process claim within 45 days. Petition disposed of with procedural directions.

What did the court decide?

Permananto order dismissing the petition but directing the Chief Engineer to examine the claim and, if admitted, process it within 45 days in accordance with law.

Tota Miah Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010144352019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4482/2019

¶5

TOTA MIAH

¶6

S/O- LATE MOSLEM UDDIN, R/O-TUKRAPARA, P.O.- TUKRAPARA, P.S. CHAYGAON, DIST- KAMRUP(R), ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶9

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

¶10

WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3.

¶11

3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

¶12

PTP CIRCLE W.R. DEPARTMENT BHARALUMUKH GUWAHATI-9.

¶13

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GUWAHATI WEST WATER RESOURCE DIVISION BHARALUMUKH GUWAHATI-09

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. K U AHMED

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WATER RESOURCE

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 06-12-2021

¶20

Heard Ms. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Chetia, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department appearing for all the respondents.

¶21

The case projected in this writ petition by the petitioner is as follows: During the period from 12.11.2012 to 19.11.2012, the petitioner was awarded a number of contract works vide work orders viz. [i] GWD/TECH/NIT/M/201011/1/117 dated 15.11.2012, [ii] GWD/TECH/NIT/M/2011-11/1/39 dated 12.11.2012, [iii] GWD/TECH/NIT/M/2011-11/1/39 dated 12.11.2012, [iv] GWD/TECH/NIT/M/2010-11/1/117-A dated 15.11.2012, [V] GWD/TECH/NIT/M/2010-11/1/215 dated 16.11.2012, [vi]

¶22

GWD/TECH/NIT/M/2010-11/1/261-A dated 19.11.2012, [vii] GWD/TECH/NIT/M/2010-11/1/302-A dated 19.11.2012 and [viii] GWD/TECH/NIT/M/2010-11/1/315-A dated 19.11.2012.

¶23

The petitioner after receipt of the work orders, proceeded to execute the contract works and completed the same satisfactorily. He has contended that in respect of all the contract works, necessary measurements and inspections were done by the officials in the respondent department. Thereafter, he submitted the final bills for the said contract works. According to the petitioner, some part payments were made in respect of two of the contract works and the total outstanding dues to be received by the petitioner from the respondent Water

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

Resources Department authorities is Rs. 8,72,634/-. Despite repeated approaches to the respondent authorities, the said outstanding dues have not been disbursed to the petitioner till date.

¶26

Ms. S. Chetia, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department has submitted, on instructions, that upon examination, it is found that an amount of Rs. 8,72,634/- is yet to be disbursed to the petitioner and the said fact is also reflected in the statement showing the outstanding liabilities in respect of the petitioner [Annexure-1 at Page 10-11] issued under the hand of the respondent no. 4. It is submitted by Ms. Chetia that the outstanding dues could not be released due to paucity of fund. She has, however, submitted that the remaining liability will be paid as and when funds are received from the Government.

¶27

Ms. Chetia has submitted the instant case is squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court, rendered on 29.09.2008, in Writ Appeal No. 484/2005 [Tamsher Ali and Ors. vs. State of Assam and Ors.], reported in 2008(4) GLT 1 (FB) and similar other 194 writ petitions and, as such, the respondent authorities will process the claim of the petitioner in the light of the principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgment.

¶28

In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Assam to examine the claim of the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and, then, if the claim is found admitted, the respondent authorities would process the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of the directions contained in Tamsher Ali (supra).

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

The petitioner shall submit a certified copy of this order to the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Assam for his doing the needful.

¶31

The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above directions.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Tota Miah v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tota Miah v. the State of Assam and 3 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

Smti. Raju Bala Das and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Arup Chetia Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Sri Pabitra Boro, Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Bimal Sen Vs Insurance Ombudsman and 2 Ors.

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

Smti. Sumitra Brahma Ramchiary Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.