Disposed

Tapan Medhi v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Nov 2022WP(C)/1955/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a contractor seeking payment of Rs.3,00,299/- for completed work. The court issued directions identical to those in connected pending petitions, ordering the Ministry of Jal Shakti to release funds and the State to clear bills after necessary budgetary communications.

What did the court decide?

Directions were issued to the State of Assam to communicate budget requirements to the Ministry of Jal Shakti and process the petitioner’s bills within 45 days of fund release.

Tapan Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010052342021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1955/2021

¶5

TAPAN MEDHI

¶6

S/O- LT. AMRIT MEDHI, R/O- VILL- SALANA, P.O. AND P.S. KHETRI, DIST.KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 782403

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶9

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPTT. ASSAM CHANDMARI GHY-3

¶10

3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER NAGAON WATER RESOURCES CIRCLE NAGAON PIN- 782001

¶11

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MORIGAON WATER RESOURCES DIVISION MORIGAON PIN- 782105 5:THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER JAGIROAD WATER RESOURCES SUB-DIVISION JAGIROAD PIN- 78241

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S MUKTAR

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WATER RESOURCE

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 02-11-2022

¶18

Heard Mr. S K Muktar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents in the Water Resources Department of the Government of Assam.

¶19

By this writ petition, the petitioner claims an unpaid contractor’s bill amounting to Rs.3,00,299/- in respect of the work performed by them pursuant to formal work order vide No. MGWRD/W275/pt-vi/2014-15/1261 (i) dated 26.05.2014. It is stated that the contract work had been completed by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the departmental authorities but the bill amounting to Rs.3,00,299/- is yet to be paid.

¶20

Mr. B Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Water Resources Department states that this contractor’s work is a part of the larger contract work under the scheme called FMP renamed as FMBAP.

¶21

It is stated that under the similar circumstance the order dated 27.09.2022 had already been passed in WP(C) No. 4734/2021 and other connected writ petition. The order dated 27.09.2022 in WP(C) No. 4734/2022 is also made a part of this order.

¶22

The directions contained in the order dated 27.09.2022 are extracted as below:

¶23

” In view of the above, these writ petitions are being disposed of with the following directions:(1) Within 15 (fifteen) days from today, the concerned official of the State Government of Assam will communicate the supplementary budget passed in the last Assembly Session pertaining to the scheme to the competent authority of the Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India. (2) Within 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of such communication, the Ministry of Jal Shakti to release the amount due under the schemes to the concerned Department of the Government of Assam. (3) Upon receipt of the amount, bills of the writ petitioners shall be processed and cleared within a further period of 45 days.”

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

The same directions are also passed in the present writ petition.

¶26

Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Tapan Medhi v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapan Medhi v. the State of Assam and 4 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

Fada Ram Boro Vs the Bodoland Territorial Council and 5 Ors.

Roton Hojai and 32 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Arnab Rajbongshi Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Tapan Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Tapan Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Rofiqul Islam and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.