Disposed

Narayan Ojha v. the Bodoland Territorial Council and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Mar 2022WP(C)/616/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to disburse Rs. 13.64 Lakhs for completed contract work. Court ordered respondent authorities to verify the claim under an existing audit order and release payment if admissible within the stipulated timeline.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to verify the claim under the audit order dated 15.11.2021 and release the amount if found entitled within the stipulated time frame.

Narayan Ojha Vs the Bodoland Territorial… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010016412019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/616/2019

¶5

NARAYAN OJHA

¶6

S/O- SRI S OJHA, VILL- HAZUWA, P.O- KAKLABARI, P.S- HAZUWA, DISTBAKSA, ASSAM, PIN- 781330

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL, BODOFA NWGWR, KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 783370

¶9

2:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR AND CHD SOIL CONSERVATION DEPTT BODOFA NWGWR KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370 FINANCE DEPTT (BUDGET) DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06 3:THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER BAKSA SOIL CONSERVATION DIVISION MUSHALPUR (BTAD) DIST- BAKSA ASSAM PIN- 781343 4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM WPT AND BC DEPTT DISPUR ASSAM

¶10

Page No.# 2/5

¶11

PIN- 781006

¶12

5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT DISPUR ASSAM PIN- 78100

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M SARANIA

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC

¶15

BEFORE

¶16

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER

¶17

02.03.2022

¶18

Heard Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.

¶19

The subject-matter in this writ petition is execution of a contract work viz. “Construction of Range Officers quarter at Jalah S. C. Range” [‘the Contract-Work’, for short] and non-disbursal of an amount of Rs. 13.64 Lakhs (Thirteen lakhs sixty four thousand) in favour of the petitioner which the petitioner has claimed to be due from the authorities in the BTC for executing the Contract-Work.

¶20

The case projected by the petitioner in this writ petition is that after Administrative Approval dated 29.11.2014 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition] and Technical Sanction dated 23.12.2015 [Annexure-2 to the writ petition] for the Contract-Work, a Settlement Order dated 20.02.2016 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition] for execution of the Contract-Work was issued in favour of the petitioner at his tendered value of Rs. 13.64 Lakhs (Thirteen lakhs sixty four thousand). The petitioner has asserted that after issuance of the Settlement Order, he proceeded to execute the Contract-Work as per the specifications, drawings and agreement and accordingly, he completed the Contract-Work on 18.07.2016. The respondent authorities

¶21

Page No.# 3/5

¶22

in the BTC 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. 3 had issued a completion certificate dated 18.07.2016 [Annexure-6 to the writ petition] certifying that the total expenditure incurred was Rs. Rs. 13.64 Lakhs (Thirteen lakhs sixty four thousand). After completion of the Contract-Work, the petitioner submitted his final bill amounting to Rs. 13.64 Lakhs (Thirteen lakhs sixty four thousand). As the said amount of Rs. 13.64 Lakhs (Thirteen lakhs sixty four thousand) has not been disbursed by the authorities in the BTC till date, the petitioner has approached this court by this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to disburse the said amount.

¶23

Mr. Bora, 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. 1 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.

¶24

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

¶25

“ BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL SECRETARIAT

¶26

BODOFA NWGWR::KOKRAJHAR

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

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

¶30

Page No.# 4/5

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

This order shall come into force with immediate effect.”

¶36

Mr. Sarania, 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

¶37

Page No.# 5/5

¶38

order.

¶39

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. 13.64 Lakhs (Thirteen lakhs sixty four thousand) 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 Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar i.e. the respondent no. 1 within 7 [seven] days from today for his doing the needful.

¶40

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

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Narayan Ojha v. the Bodoland Territorial Council and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Ojha v. the Bodoland Territorial Council and 4 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

Bijay Singh Baid Vs Islamuddin Ahmed and Anr.

Subal Das Vs the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Bhola Borah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

The Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Assam Apex Weavers and Artisans Co-Op. Federation Vs Dinesh Deka and 3 Ors.

Paresh Ch. Hajong Vs State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Dinesh Deka and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.