Disposed

Smita Rani Das and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Feb 2022WP(C)/396/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding non-payment of work bills, the Gauhati High Court directed the municipal board to verify the petitioner's claims and made payment in three equal installments by October 2022, considering the board's financial crisis.

What did the court decide?

Verify claim and pay entitled amount in three equal installments on or before 31st October 2022.

Smita Rani Das and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010012532020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/396/2020

¶5

SMITA RANI DAS AND ANR. PRESIDENT OF CONSTRUCTION SUB COMMITTEE, MANGALDOI MUNICIPAL BOARD, MANGALDOI, W/O- BHAGIRATH CHETRI, R/OSANTIPUR, MANGALDOI TOWN, P.O- MANGALDOI, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM

¶6

2: MD. MAHAR ALI SECRETARY OF CONSTRUCTION SUB COMMITTEE MANGALDOI MUNICIPALBOARD MANGALDOI S/O- LATE MAHIJUDDIN AHMED R/O- WARD NO.5 NATUNPARA MANGALDOI TOWN P.O- MANGALDOI DIST- DARRANG ASSA

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06 3:THE CHAIRMAN OF MANGALDOI MUNICIPAL BOARD P.O- MANGALDOI DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125

¶10

Page No.# 2/4

¶11

4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF MANGALDOI MUNICIPAL BOARD P.O- MANGALDOI DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 78412

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ALI

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 03-02-2022

¶17

Heard Mr. A Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B Deuri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed for non-payment of the outstanding bill amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in terms with the Office order(s) dated 14.02.2017 and 21.06.2017 issued by the Chairman of Mangaldoi Municipal Board, Darrang.

¶19

The facts of the instant case is that the petitioner was issued an Office Order vide Memo No.MMB/600/2016/5036 dated 14.02.2017 by the respondent No.3 for construction of “Brick Drain along East Side of Sale Tax Office Road at Ward No.1”. The sanctioned amount is Rs.5,00,000/- and the period of completion was three months. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the said work was successfully completed to the satisfaction of the concerned respondent Municipal Board but till date no payment has been made.

¶20

The petitioner also was awarded another contract vide an Office order bearing Memo No.MMB/600/2016/5767 dated 21.06.2017 by the respondent No.3 for the purpose of construction of Road side Brick Drain

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

along North side of Natunpara Road from Santoshi Maa Mandir towards Maranodi at Ward No.5. The sanctioned amount of the said work was also Rs.5,00,000/- and the period of completion was three months. The petitioner’s further case is that the petitioner had duly completed the said work to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities but the said amount has not been paid.

¶23

It is also relevant herein to take note of that the respondent No.3 had issued a certificate dated 16.10.2009 certifying that the work order dated 14.02.2017 was successfully completed in all respect to the satisfaction of the department. Further to that the first and the final bill have also been certified by the Assistant Engineer, Mangaldoi Municipal Board. In spite of the same and the repeated representation to the respondent authorities, the payment has not been made to the petitioner for which the petitioner has approached this Court for an appropriate writ direction and order.

¶24

The respondent No.4 had filed an affidavit in opposition wherein though it has been mentioned that the said work orders were issued without complying with section 53 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 but it was not been denied that the petitioner had completed the work. In fact at paragraph No.17 it has been stated that on account of the National Lockdown in force for most part of the year 2020, the respondent Mangaldoi Municipal Board is going through acute financial crisis and hence it is not possible to release the payment to the petitioner from their own fund in the present situation.

¶25

Be that as it may, it is relevant to take note of that the respondent authorities have duly admitted that the petitioner has done the work as stated in the writ petition. The amount for which the petitioner had done the work is obviously subject to the verification of the respondent Municipal

¶26

Page No.# 4/4

¶27

Board.

¶28

Accordingly, this Court deems it fit in the interest of justice to direct the respondent authorities to verify the claim of the petitioner and to make the payment to the petitioner on or before October, 2022.

¶29

Mr. B Deuri, learned counsel for the respondents submits that taking into account the financial situation of the respondent board, this Court may direct payment of the amount to which the petitioner is entitled to in the form of installments.

¶30

Accordingly, taking into consideration the financial condition of the board as stated in paragraph No.17 of the affidavit in opposition as well as the contention of Mr. B Deuri, it is provided that the respondent Board shall after making necessary verification pay the said amount in three equal installments in respect to the amounts to which the petitioner is entitled to after verification on or before 31^st October, 2022.

¶31

With the above observation the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Smita Rani Das and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smita Rani Das and Anr. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Shiva Bottles Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Noor Nahar Jiya Vs the State of Assam and 13 Ors.

Kasma Bibi Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

M/S Sai Baba Enterprises and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Manikanta Machahary Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Pradip Mashahary Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.