Disposed

Eunus Ali v. the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Jan 2022WP(C)/332/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought release of pending bills for road restoration works executed under urgent instructions but lacking a formal work order. This court declined to intervene due to disputed facts but directed disposal of pending representation to examine claims and release dues if found outstanding.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to dispose of pending representation and release any outstanding amount found due against petitioner's claims.

Eunus Ali Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

GAHC010010712017

¶2

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/332/2017

¶5

EUNUS ALI S/O LT. HAMED ALI VILL- KAZAIKATA PT.V, P.O. KAZAIKATA P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN - 783348. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and 10 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. FO ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ROADS DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. FO ASSAM CUM CHAIRMAN OF ASSAM STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ASSAM STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY DISPUR GUWAHATI - 781006. 4:THE DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶6

ASSAM STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY DISPUR GUWAHATI - 781006. 5:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ROADS DISPUR GUWAHATI - 781006. 6:THE CHIEF ENGINEER ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PWD ROADS CHANDMARI GUWAHATI - 781003. 7:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PWD ROADS WESTERN ASSAM CIRCLE GOALPARA ASSAM PIN - 783101. 8:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHUBRI P.O. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN - 783301. 9:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROADS DHUBRI RURAL ROADS DIVISION DHUBRI PIN-783301. 10:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROADS BILASIPARA RURAL ROADS SUB DIVISION DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN - 783348.

¶7

11:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BILASIPARA REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI A SSAM PIN - 783348

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N I KHAN

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM R2,3,4, 8 and 11

¶10

:: BEFORE::

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶12

::ORDER::

¶13

06.01.2022

¶14

Heard Mr. M.R. Khandakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel appears for the PWD.

¶15

2. The petitioner claims to have executed the following works:

¶16

		Rs. in Lakhs
1	Temporary Restoration of Krishnagar Kazaikata Hudurchar Road.	9.2
2	Temporary Restoration of Bilasipara I.B to NH-31 at Sankosh Point Road	9.91
3	Temporary Restoration to Bilasipara Hakama Road	6.20

¶17

4	Temporary Restoration of Kazaikata High School to Nayeralga Village Road	2.66
5	Temporary Restoration of Bilasipara Beltoli PWD Road to Gaurang River Parghat via Samsul Huda’s House Road	3.00
6	Immediate Restoration of Bridge No. 2/1(Subway) on 3^rdkm of BS Road at Jogirmahal to Salmara Road	5.00
7	Immediate Restoration of Dhanpur to Suripara Road.	5.00
8	Immediate Restoration of 13 km of BS Road to Barkuti Road	7.74

¶18

3. However, although the works were stated to be completed satisfactorily, the bills raised for the petitioner have not been cleared by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the works indicated at Para-2 above had been duly executed by the petitioner for the Department, although, no work order was deliberately issued to the petitioner as the same were required to be urgently executed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he is a contractor, executing several works under the Department and therefore, at the request of the Department that the works were required to be executed urgently. He had executed the works making huge financial investments. However, inspite of the Department being aware that the works were duly executed by the petitioner, they have refused or failed to release any of the payments only on the ground that no work order was issued. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had executed the works under good faith as the respondents authorities impressed upon him to execute the works informing him that the work order will be issued at a subsequent date. However, since no work order

¶19

was issued, the respondents have now turned around and refuse to admit his claims.

¶20

4. The petitioner has referred to joint verification report conducted by the Circle Officer, Chapar, Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Bilasipara, Rural Roads Sub Division and Junior Engineer, Bilasipara Rural Roads Sub Division. It is the further case of the petitioner that pursuant to the joint verifications made, an estimate for SDRF (Temporary Restoration works) for the year 2015-16 under Dhubri Rural Road Division, Dhubri had been submitted by the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) Assam to the Commissioner & Special Secretary to the Government of Assam pertaining to the works undertaken. However inspite of assurances made, the bills have not been released to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to release the pending bills for works executed.

¶21

5. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing their affidavit. In the affidavit, there is a categorical averment that although the joint verification was done but there is no report regarding any works executed by the petitioner. Therefore, the claims made by the petitioner are not tenable. It is the further contention of the respondents that there was no work order issued which had been produced by the petitioner. Therefore, the claims made by the petitioner are not admitted by the Department.

¶22

6. In writ proceedings when there are disputed questions of facts, the writ Court ought not to assume jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Although, the petitioner claims to have executed

¶23

the works, referred above, the Government order/ work orders necessary to support the claims of the petitioner/contractor has not been enclosed to the writ petition. The same is also referred to by the respondents/Department in their affidavit filed.

¶24

7. In view of such claims being factually disputed by the respondents in the absence of valid work orders, this Court declines to issue any order directing the respondents for release any payments in terms of the prayers made. However, it is seen that there is a representation which the petitioner claims had been filed before the respondent No. 1 but the same is stated to have not been disposed of. If that be so, the respondents are directed to dispose of any such representation that may be pending before the authorities concerned and upon examination of the claims of the petitioner, if any amount is found to be outstanding in respect of any of the works described in the representation then the same shall be released by the Department.

¶25

8. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed off. No order as to costs.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Eunus Ali v. the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eunus Ali v. the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipika Sharma and Anr. Vs Indian Bank and 2 Ors.

Sri Amarjit Barman and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Purbanchaliya Rail Karmi Parishad Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Basistha Krishna Charan @ Bashistha Krishna Charan and Anr. Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong and 4 Ors.

On the Death of Anup Kumar Das His Legal Heirs Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

The Managing Committee of the Moinul Haque Choudhury Higher Secondary School Vs Aramul Haque Choudhury and 3 Ors.