Allowed

Sanjib Das v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC16 Sept 2022WP(C)/616/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Class-I contractor and cancer patient, challenged delayed payment of his billed amount by the Assam Irrigation Department. The Court rejected the respondent's reliance on fund unavailability, directing payment within 15 days due to the small amount and the petitioner's immediate medical needs.

What did the court decide?

Directing the authorities in the Irrigation Department, particularly the Chief Engineer, to make arrangements to pay the amount of Rs.4,90,446/- to the petitioner within 15 days from the date of recei

Sanjib Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010014332021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/616/2021

¶5

SANJIB DAS

¶6

S/O. GHANASHYAM DAS, VILL. BOTAHGHULI, P.O. PANJABARI, P.S. CHACHAL, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781037.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY.-781006.

¶9

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

¶10

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003.

¶11

3:THE DY. CHIEF ENGINEER

¶12

IRRIGATION ASSAM GUWAHATI PIN-781003.

¶13

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶14

GUWAHATI DIVISION (IRRIGATION) ASSAM GUWAHATI PIN-781007.

¶15

5:THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

GUWAHATI B AND S SUB DIVISION IRRIGATION GUWAHATI

¶18

PIN-781007.

¶19

6:THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR LOWER ASSAM C.A.D.A. AUTHORITY

¶20

CHANDMARI

¶21

GUWAHATI-781003

¶22

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KALITA

¶23

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION

¶24

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Date : 16-09-2022

¶27

Heard Mr. B N Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N Upadhaya, learned counsel for the respondents in the Irrigation Department, Government of Assam.

¶28

The petitioner is a Class-I (C) contractor in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Assam. The petitioner participated in the NIT floated vide No. GDI/QT/50/PtIV/6 dated 04.11.2014 and the following work orders were issued in his favour:

¶29

I. For extension of afflux bund from ch 372.00m to 382.00 (10m) of Bangoltola Majarkuri FIS (Ph-II) under AIBP 2010-11 of approx. value of Rs.3,00,135.00.

¶30

II. For extension of afflux bund from ch 382.00m to 392.00 (10m) of Bangoltola Majarkuri FIS (Ph-II) under AIBP 2010-11 of approx value of Rs.3,00,135.00.

¶31

III. For extension of afflux bund from ch 392.00m to 405.00 (13m) of Bangoltola Majarkuri FIS (Ph-II) under AIBP 2010-11 of approx. value of Rs.3,90,176.00.

¶32

Page No.# 3/3

¶33

The petitioner duly completed the aforesaid three works and had submitted his bill for the purpose. This writ petition is instituted on the grievance that the bill amount of Rs.4,90,446/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Forty Six) had not been paid by the respondents. The respondents in the Irrigation Department has filed an affidavitin-opposition wherein in paragraph 4, the amount due to the petitioner is admitted but the only stand taken is that the same would be subject to availability of fund. But at the same time we have taken note that the petitioner is a cancer patient who is 36 (thirty six) years old and needs immediate money for his treatment.

¶34

We cannot accept the stand of the respondent that the money will be paid subject to the availability of fund, more so, as the NIT is of the year 2014. Considering the amount of Rs.4,90,446/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Forty Six) to be relatively a small amount in comparison with the various contract works the Department gives to the contractors, we direct the authorities in the Irrigation Department, particularly to the Chief Engineer to make arrangements that the payment of the aforesaid amount is made to the petitioner within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶35

The direction to pay the amount within 15 (fifteen) days is passed considering the aspect that the amount payable is Rs.4,90,446/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Forty Six) is comparatively a very small amount compared to the various contracts the Department gives and secondly, the petitioner is a cancer patient who needs immediate money for his treatment.

¶36

Writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Sanjib Das v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjib Das 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bidut Bakshi @ Bidyut Bakshi Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Taj Uddin Laskar and 12 Ors, Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors..

Niladri Sankar Das and 6 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Bharat Gandhi Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Anjali Ghose Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Promila Nunia Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.