Disposed

Ansumwi Narzary v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 Jun 2022WP(C)/6024/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that respondent authorities must verify the petitioner's claim for outstanding contract work payment within three months. If admissible per financial norms, the amount shall be released. The petition was disposed of after directing the specific verification exercise.

What did the court decide?

The Respondent authorities directed to verify the claim within three months and release the amount if found admissible per Tamsher Ali directions.

Ansumwi Narzary Vs the State of Assam and 6… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010186832021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/6024/2021

¶5

ANSUMWI NARZARY

¶6

S/O LT. GOSHI RAM NARZARY, VILL. GOSSAIGAON, P.O. RANCHAIDHAM, P.S. BASUGAON, DIST. CHIRANG, PIN 783372

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. PWD DEPTT. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006

¶10

2:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. KOKRAJHAR 783370

¶11

3:THE JOINT SECY. BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL

¶12

KOKRAJHAR 783370

¶13

4:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER CUM DIRECTOR

¶14

PWD

¶15

BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR 783370

¶16

5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

¶17

PWD (R AND B) CIRCLE KOKRAJHAR 783370

¶18

6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

PWD

CHIRANG (R AND B)

Page No.# 2/5

KAJALGAON CHIRANG 783385

¶23

7:THE BLOCK DEV. OFFICER

¶24

SIDLI CHIRANG DEV. BLOCK SIDLI CHIRANG 78338

¶25

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K NAIR

¶26

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC

¶27

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Date : 13.06.2022

¶30

Heard Mr. A. Boro, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Public Works Department [PWD] for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. R.K. Muchahari, learned Standing Counsel, Boroland Territorial Council [BTC] for the respondent nos. 2-7.

¶31

The subject-matter of this writ petition is execution of a contract-work viz. ‘Earth filling and sand Gravelling of road from Montu house to Silpatta village near Kala house at Kattalpara Relief Road’ under Sidli-Chirang Development Block under SOPD Fund for the year : 2018-2019 [‘the Contract-Work’, for short] and non-disbursal of an amount of Rs. 9,07,830/- in favour of the petitioner which the petitioner has claimed to be due from the respondent BTC.

¶32

The case projected by the petitioner in this writ petition, in brief, is that the petitioner was awarded the Contract-Work by a Work Order dated 06.08.2018 [Annexure-4]. The Administrative Approval for the Contract-Work was accorded on 25.05.2018 [Annexure-2]. The petitioner has annexed the detail estimate for the Contract-Work as Annexure-3, wherefrom it is reflected that the Technical Sanction was shown to have accorded for the Contract-Work on 15.06.2018. The petitioner has asserted that after completion of all the

¶33

Page No.# 3/5

¶34

requisite formalities, he proceeded to execute the Contract-Work as per the specification, drawing and agreement and completed the same. The authorities in the respondent BTC physically verified the Contract-Work and found that the Contract-Work had been completed as per the specification, drawing and agreement. In that connection, the respondent authority had issued a Physical Inspection Report [Page no. 30]. After completion of the Contract-Work, the respondent authorities in the BTC had also issued a Completion Certificate [Page no. 32] and a Financial Status Report [Page no. 33]. The Contract-Work was stated to have been handed over on 15.03.2019 as per the Handing and Taking Over Certificate [Page no. 35]. After completion of the Contract-Work, the respondent no. 7 had forwarded the entire matter along with all the requisite documents to the respondent no. 2 by a Communication bearing no. SCDB/SOPD/CD-340/2018-2019/3828 dated 20.03.2019 [Annexure-5]. The petitioner had thereafter, submitted the final bill amounting to Rs. 9,07,830/-, but the amount has not been disbursed till date.

¶35

Mr. Muchahari, 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 was taken by the respondent BTC authorities to examine all the pending claims relating to contract works and to that effect the respondent no. 2 had passed an order on 15.11.2021. As per the said order, the respondent BTC authorities had undertaken to examine all the cases relating to outstanding liabilities from the year 2011 onwards within a period of 6 [six] months from the date of issuance of the said order. Mr. Muchahari has submitted that the case of the petitioner can be considered by undertaking an exercise in similar line like the one indicated in the order dated 15.11.2021. Mr. Muchahari has placed a copy of the said order before this Court.

¶36

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

¶37

“BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL SECRETARIAT

¶38

BODOFA NWGWR::KOKRAJHAR

¶39

Page No.# 4/5

¶40

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

¶41

ORDER

¶42

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

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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 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.

¶47

Page No.# 5/5

¶48

This order shall come into force with immediate effect.”

¶49

Mr. Boro, 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 may be completed by undertaking a similar kind of exercise within the stipulated time period as mentioned in the said order.

¶50

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 BTC shall undertake and complete similar kind of exercise, like the one mentioned in the order dated 15.11.2021, in respect of the claim of the petitioner also within a period of 3 [three] months. If after such exercise, the petitioner is found entitled to the amount of Rs. 9,07,830/-, as claimed herein, or any other amount, the same shall be released in favour of the petitioner in terms of the directions contained in the decision in Tamsher Ali [supra]. The petitioner shall submit a certified copy of this order to the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Principal 0Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council [BTC], Kokrajhar within 7 [seven] days from today for doing the needful by his office.

¶51

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

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

Comparing Assistant

Ansumwi Narzary v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ansumwi Narzary v. the State of Assam and 6 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

Basanti Barman and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Rangdulal Dey Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Hafiz Siddique Ahmed and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Kedar Nath Pathak and 19 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 15 Ors.

Ramen Changmai Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Kamal Sing Brahma Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.