Disposed

Domon Longmailai v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Apr 2022WP(C)/1615/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a registered contractor, sought directions for disbursement of final bills for completed road work under a Public Works Department contract. The court, noting non-payment despite verified completion and a pending supplementary demand, disposed of the petition by directing respondent authorities to examine the claim within 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit order; Respondents vide 2 and 3 to examine claim within 45 days and process it in light of TamsherAli principles.

Domon Longmailai Vs the State of Assam and 5… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010051872020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1615/2020

¶5

DOMON LONGMAILAI

¶6

S/O- LT. PANCHANON LONGMAILAI, R/O- VILL- GADAIN SIBRAIPUR, P.O. AND P.S. LANGTING, DIST.- DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, PIN- 788832

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶9

2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DIMA HASAO AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL HAFLONG DIST.- DIMA HASAO ASSAM PIN- 788819

¶10

3:THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (R AND B) HAFLONG DIST.- DIMA HASAO ASSAM PIN- 788819

¶11

4:SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER PWD (R AND B) HAFLONG CIRCLE HAFLONG DIMA HASAO PIN- 788819

¶12

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROAD AND BUILDING) MAIBANG DIVISION DIST.- DIMA HASAO

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

ASSAM PIN- 788831

¶15

6:ACCOUNTS OFFICER MAIBANG (PWD) (R AND B) DIVISION MAIBANG DIST.- DIMA HASAO ASSAM PIN- 78883

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B BARUAH

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, N C HILLS

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 04-04-2022

¶21

Heard Mr. B. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing counsel, Public Works Department for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. R.M. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Dima Hasao Autonomous Council, for the respondent nos. 2-6.

¶22

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is a registered contractor with the respondent Public Works Department. In response to a tender notice dated 15.12.2014, the petitioner submitted his bid and after having emerged successful in the process, he was awarded the contract work viz. ‘M & Bt of Langting Mitherdisa Road [Remaining portion of Ch. 1225.00 mt] under HADP [Additive Plan] for the year 2014-15. [Ch.1225.00 mt to Ch. 1625.00 mt, Length = 0.40 Km]’ [‘the Contract-Work’, for short].

¶23

The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that Administrative Approval and Financial Sanction for the said Contract-Work was accorded on 15.12.2014 [Annexure-A]. The respondent authorities had issued the Formal

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

Work Order dated 19.01.2015 [Annexure-D] to the petitioner at the tendered value of Rs. 19,09,178/-. The petitioner has asserted that thereafter, he proceeded to execute Contract-Work as per the specifications, drawings and agreement. The respondent authorities inspected the Contract-Work and after inspection, submitted a Inspection/Verification Report [Annexure-F] on 19.08.2015 certifying that the Contract-Work was completed to the extent of 100%. After completion of the contract work, the petitioner submitted his final bills amounting to Rs. 19,09,178/-, the receipt of which was acknowledged by the respondent authorities. As the said amount has not been disbursed till date, the petitioner has approached this court by this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to disburse the said amount.

¶26

Referring to the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 3, Mr. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Dima Hasao Autonomous Council has submitted that it has been admitted that the Contract-Work had already been completed. The total value of the Contract-Work executed by the petitioner is also not disputed. For making payment to the petitioner, a supplementary demand for an amount of Rs. 19.9 lakh has already been submitted by the respondent DHAC authorities to the State Government on 05.11.2009. It is submitted by Mr. Das that the said amount of Rs. 19.90 lakh would be paid as and when the fund in respect of the supplementary demand is received from the Government.

¶27

Mr. Das has further 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

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgment.

¶30

In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself with a direction to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 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 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). The petitioner shall submit a certified copy of this order, to the respondent nos. 2 & 3 for doing the needful.

¶31

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

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Domon Longmailai v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Domon Longmailai v. the State of Assam and 5 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

Jarina Parbin Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Binod Ch Barman Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Debananda Doley Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Rabin Medhi Vs the State of Assam

Jogananda Das and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Rajendra Das Vs Biswajit Pegu and Anr.