Disposed

Manaj Kr. Brahma v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Feb 2022WP(C)/546/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a contractor, sought writ relief for outstanding dues of Rs. 19.8 lakhs for completed work. The Court directed the respondent Bodoland Territorial Council to examine and verify the claim under its existing order of 15.11.2021 within the stipulated six-month period and release the amount if admissible.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent BTC authorities to complete the verification of the petitioner's claim within the stipulated time frame and release the amount if found admissible.

Manaj Kr. Brahma Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010008872022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/546/2022

¶5

MANAJ KR. BRAHMA

¶6

S/O- PRADIP KR. BRAHMA, VILL.- NORTH PATGAON, P.O. PATGAON, DIST.KOKRAJHAR, BTR, ASSAM, PIN- 783346.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

¶10

2:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIALCOUNCIL REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BODOFA NWGWR KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM PIN- 783370.

¶11

3:THE SECRETARY

¶12

PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL BODOFA NWGWR KOKRAJHAR B.T.R. ASSAM PIN- 783370.

¶13

4:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR

¶14

DRDA BODOFA NWGWR

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

KOKRAJHAR B.T.R. ASSAM PIN- 783370. 5:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DOTMA DEVELOPMENT BLOCK DOTMA KOKRAJHAR B.T.R. ASSAM PIN- 783370.

¶17

6:THE JUNIOR ENGINEER DOTMA DEVELOPMENT BLOCK DOTMA KOKRAJHAR B.T.R. ASSAM PIN- 783370

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : J U AHMED

¶19

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

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 01-02-2022

¶23

Heard Mr. J U Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Choudhury, learned counsel for the BTC and Mr. M Nath, learned counsel for the P & RD.

¶24

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner who was issued a formal work order dated 05.03.2019 by a sanctioned amount of Rs.19,80,000.00 in respect of execution of the “Const. of RCC Box Culvert at East Genduguri L.P. School road to Jharbari PWD connection under Jharbari VCDC” under CD fund BTC. The petitioner submits that he has completed the work to the satisfaction of the authorities and

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

submitted his bill. It is the further contention of the petitioner that in spite of acknowledgement of the said liability and statement of the utilization certificate, completion certificate, physical inspection report etc, the petitioner has not been paid his legitimate dues for which the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

Mr. Choudhury, 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. 2 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. Choudhury has placed a copy of the said order before this Court.

¶28

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

¶29

BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL SECRETARIAT BODOFA

¶30

NWGWR::KOKRAJHAR

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

Page No.# 4/5

¶36

works, fund position, part payment, etc.

¶37

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 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

¶38

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 be processed in accordance with law and as per decision contained in Tamsher Ali and others vs. State of Assam and others Page No. 5/5 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. This order shall come into force with immediate effect.”

¶39

Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner having gone through the said order, 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.

¶40

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

¶41

Page No.# 5/5

¶42

Assam and Ors.], reported in 2008 [4] GLT 1 [FB] and similar other 194 writ petitions, 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.19,80,000.00 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 respondent no. 3 within 7 [seven] days from today for his doing the needful. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above observation and direction.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

Manaj Kr. Brahma v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manaj Kr. Brahma 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

Rupjan Bibi Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Mazibur Rahman and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Jewti N.G.O. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Samrat Dutta Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Kushal Ch. Baishya @ Kushal Baishya Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gamala Boro Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.