Disposed

Sanjit Boro v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Apr 2022WP(C)/2564/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, The Gauhati High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding non-payment of contract work dues. The Court directed the BTC authorities to examine the petitioner's claim under an existing order within the stipulated timeframe and to release the amount if found admissible.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to complete verification of the petitioner's claim under the 15.11.2021 order within the stipulated time and release the amount if found admissible.

Sanjit Boro Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010070692022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2564/2022

¶5

SANJIT BORO

¶6

S/O GANDESWAR BORO, R/O VILL AND P.O.-DOLOGAON, DISTKOKRAJHAR, BTR, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶9

THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ASSAM JURIPAR PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37

¶11

3:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BTC P.O. AND DIST-KOKRAJHAR PIN-783370

¶12

4:THE SECRETARY P AND RD BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR P.O. AND DIST- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN-783370

¶13

Page No.# 2/6

¶14

5:THE DIRECTOR PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BTC P.O. AND DIST-KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN-783370

¶15

6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SIDLI CHIRANG DEVELOPMENT BLOCK SIDLI DIST-CHIRANG PIN-783393 BTR ASSA

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R DHAR

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D.

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 08-04-2022

¶21

Heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Nath, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. R.K. Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel, Bodoland Territorial Council [BTC] for the respondent nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6.

¶22

The subject-matter in this writ petition is execution of a contract work viz. ‘Construction of RCC Box Culvert at Dangsibari village’ [the Contract-Work] and non-disbursal of an amount of Rs. 8,77,000/- in favour of the petitioner which the petitioner has claimed to be due from the respondent authorities in the BTC.

¶23

Page No.# 3/6

¶24

The case projected by the petitioner in this writ petition, in brief, is that Administrative Approval for the Contract-Work was accorded on 29.05.2018 [Annexure-1]. Pursuant to the Administrative Approval, the respondent no. 6 had issued a Work Order dated 01.12.2018 [Annexure-2] for the Contract-Work at a tendered value of Rs. 8,68,230/-. The petitioner has asserted that after compliance of requisite formalities, he proceeded to execute Contract-Work as per the specifications, drawings and agreement and completed the same. The authorities in the respondent BTC through the respondent no. 6 physically verified the Contract-Work and found that the Contract-Work had been completed as per the specifications, drawings, and agreement. In that connection, the respondent no. 6 had issued an Advice Slip for Payment [Annexure-3] for an amount of Rs. 8,77,000/-. The petitioner submitted his final bills for the Contract-Work for an amount of Rs. 8,77,000/-. As the said amount of Rs. 8,77,000/- 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 amount.

¶25

Mr. Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel, BTC has submitted that though from the documents annexed to this writ petition, it is prima facie reflected that the petitioner had completed the Contract-Work but still there is requirement for verification of the matter. It is submitted that a decision has been taken by the respondent BTC authorities to examine all the pending claims relating to contract works and to that effect the respondent no. 3 has passed an order on 15.11.2021. As per the said order, the respondent BTC authorities have undertaken to examine all the cases relating to outstanding liabilities within a period of 6 [six] months from the date of issuance of the said order. Mr. Mushahary has placed a copy of the said order before this Court.

¶26

Page No.# 4/6

¶27

The order bearing No. BTC/F(Audit)/49/2021/Pt-I/1] dated Kokrajhar, the 15^th November, 2021 reads as under :-

¶28

“ BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL SECRETARIAT

¶29

BODOFA NWGWR::KOKRAJHAR

¶30

No. BTC/F(Audit)49/2021/Pt-I/1 Dated- Kokrajhar, the 15^th November, 2021

¶31

ORDER

¶32

WHEREAS it has been noticed that huge number of outstanding liabilities have been created by the erstwhile BTAD authority since 2011 to February, 2020 through contractual work orders to the Contractors/Suppliers, etc. under various entrusted departments of BTC without corresponding budget provisions

¶33

WHEREAS the outstanding liabilities created by the erstwhile BTAD authority are required to undergo detail examination and verification in the context of proposals of such works made, NIT, selection of successful bidders, quality of works, completion of works, fund position, part payment, etc.

¶34

WHEREAS it is further noticed that a good number of court cases have been filed before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court as well as in the District Courts of respective District Jurisdictions under BTAD by the Contractors/Suppliers, etc. praying for release of payments to the Contractors/Suppliers, etc. against their respective work orders

¶35

WHEREAS, reportedly, out of the aforesaid contractual works, some part payments also made against portion of works completed by the Contractors/Suppliers, etc. by the erstwhile BTAD authority in certain cases. However, such fund flow does not follow any rationale and is found to be arbitrant

¶36

AND THEREFORE, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the BTC has decided to verify all such works by conducting comprehensive audit, financial verification and physical verification wherever applicable, against all such contractual works in the Govt. level and further to complete the whole exercise in this regard within 6 (six) months from the date of issue of this order. After verifying the same, if it is found that the claims are admissible after following all established financial norms, the same shall

¶37

Page No.# 5/6

¶38

be processed in accordance with law and as per decision contained in Tamsher Ali and others vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1 accordingly. Furthermore, if instances of wrongdoing or misappropriation are found during such comprehensive audit, financial verification and physical verification wherever applicable, appropriate legal action would be taken against the persons/agencies/firms concerned in accordance with the applicable laws.

¶39

This order shall come into force with immediate effect.”

¶40

Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department has also endorsed the said submission.

¶41

Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner having gone through the order dated 15.11.2021, has submitted that the process regarding payment of the outstanding dues to the petitioner shall be completed within the stipulated time period as mentioned in the said order

¶42

Having considered the contents of the said order dated 15.11.2021 and the decision of 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.], and similar other 194 writ petitions reported in 2008 [4] GLT 1 [FB], it is considered appropriate that the respondent authorities in the respondent BTC shall undertake the exercise in terms of the said order dated 15.11.2021 in respect of the claims of the petitioner also and complete the exercise within the time frame mentioned in the order. If after such exercise, the petitioner is found entitled to the amount of Rs. 8,77,000/- or any other amount, the same shall be released in favour of the petitioner forthwith thereafter. The petitioner shall submit a certified copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council [BTC], Kokrajhar i.e. the respondent no. 3 within 7 [seven] days from today for his doing the needful.

¶43

Page No.# 6/6

¶44

9. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above observation

¶45

and direction.

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Comparing Assistant

Sanjit Boro v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjit Boro 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Abinava Info Systems Private Limited and Anr. Vs State Bank of India and Anr.

Bichitra Sarma and 10 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Nilakanta Baruah and 12 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Munindra Kumar Dev Sarma and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

M/S Ambikagiri Gpss Limited Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Munindra Kumar Dev Sarma Vs Mahndra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and 3 Ors.