Disposed

M/S. Niku Tent House v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Sept 2021WP(C)/486/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought release of `8,07,460/- for election works. Bill amount was admitted by authorities but delayed. This petition was disposed of directing verification and payment within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent authorities to verify the claim and release the amount due to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

M/S. Niku Tent House Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010016212020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/486/2020

¶5

M/S. NIKU TENT HOUSE

¶6

REP. BY ITS PROP. SRI PRANAB JYOTI BAYAN, S/O-LATE JOGENDRA NATH BAYAN, R/O- VILL- MOUKHARI, P.O- KEOTKUCHI, P.S AND DISTBARPETA, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, ASSAM SACHIBALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06

¶10

2:THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06

¶11

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER BARPETA DISTRICT P.O- BARPETA ASSAM

¶12

4:ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER I/C OF CONSTRUCTION CELL ASSEMBLY ELECTION 2016 BARPETA DISTRICT BARPET

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J SARMAH

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶17

ORDER

¶18

04.09.2021

¶19

Heard Mr. J. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondents.

¶20

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the nonpayment of certain bills amounting to ` 8,07,460/- which the petitioner claims to have incurred in connection with certain execution of work under Work Order Nos.Constn.01/Gen/AE-16/05 dated 26.02.2016 and Constn.-01/Gen/AE-16/Pt-II/01-21 dated 28.08.2016 for making arrangement of temporary sheds, chair, dais and skilled labour, plastic chair and table, etc. in connection with the holding of Assembly Election, 2016 Assam in Barpeta.

¶21

3. According to the petitioner, though the petitioner had executed the aforementioned work satisfactorily without any complain from any quarter, the authorities rather than releasing the bill amount due to the petitioner on account of the aforesaid works set over the matter. According to the petitioner, the respondent authorities had not denied the said liability. As such, as the authorities have not release the bill amount, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶22

4. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to Annexure-41, which is a letter written by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner & I/C Construction Cell, Assembly Election-2016, Barpeta, dated 06.10.2016 forwarding the bill for construction and arrangement as mentioned above in favour of the petitioner. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit-

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

in-opposition filed by the respondents also the authorities have not denied the same and also mentioned the steps being taken to release the said amount. Accordingly, it may be apposite to reproduce the aforesaid paragraph 3 as follows:-

¶25

“3. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Writ Petition, the office of the Chief Electoral Office, Assam, has no comments to offer except that the petitioner Sri Pranab Jyoti Bayan, son of late Jogendra Nath Bayan, R/oVill-Moukhari, P.O.-Keotkuchi, P.S. & Dist.-Barpeta, Assam, is the proprietor of M/S Niku Tent House, who was allotted some construction works by Deputy Commissioner & District Election Officer, Barpeta, during Assembly Election, 2016 in Barpeta. As mentioned in the Writ Petition, Sri Pranab Jyoti Bayan has not been paid a bill amount of Rs.807460.00/- (Rupees eight lakhs seven thousand four hundred sixty) against the works executed by him. He has prayed for release of his due payment from Deputy Commissioner & District Election Officer, Barpeta.

¶26

In this regard, it is to be stated that Deputy Commissioner & District Election Officer, Barpeta submitted demand for payment of outstanding liabilities amounting to Rs.6006167.00/- vide letter No.BEL-39/2016/34 dated 09.11.2018. However, it needs to be mentioned that a total amount of Rs.45631000/- was released to, DC & DEO, Barpeta for conduct of Assembly Election, 2016, out of which total expenditure incurred was Rs.45469057.00 and Rs.161943.00 was surrendered.

¶27

The Proposal for payment of additional outstanding liabilities of Rs.6006167.00/-, submitted by DC & DEO, Barpeta on 18.11.2018, after 2(two) years of elections, is being examined. Entire staff of Election Department is presently preoccupied with preparations for forthcoming General Elections to Assam Legislative Assembly, 2021.”

¶28

5. Learned counsel for the State also submits that for taking necessary steps some time

¶29

may be granted to release the aforesaid amount due to the petitioner after making necessary verification.

¶30

6. Ordinarily, writ courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶31

India are not the appropriate forum to deal with claim or recovery of money, as it would

¶32

Page No.# 4/4

¶33

generally entail examination of disputed questions of fact. However, where any liability or due is not disputed but admitted by the other party, there may not be any impediment on the part of the Court to pass appropriate order in that regard.

¶34

7. In the present case, since the amount claimed by the petitioner is not disputed by the authorities rather admitted, and as the respondents have sought time to release the same after making necessary verification, the present petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to verify the said claim and release the amount due to the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

M/S. Niku Tent House v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Niku Tent House 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Phurpa Tsering and Anr. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

M/S. Parbati Tea Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Rhino Assam Tea Processing Enterprise

The Assam State Housing Board and Anr. Vs Smti Ayesha Khatoon and 28 Ors. (B)

Brikendra Basumatary Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dindayal Saraogi and Sons (Huf) and Anr. Vs Md.Sameer Choudhury and 4 Ors.

Dindayal Saraogi and Anr. Vs Md. Sameer Choudhury and 4 Ors.