Disposed

Manikanta Machahary v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Feb 2022WP(C)/626/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought payment of outstanding dues for completed irrigation work. Court directed respondent authorities to include petitioner's claim in their upcoming comprehensive audit and verification of pending liabilities within six months as per their own order, and to release payment thereafter if admissible.

What did the court decide?

Respondent authorities directed to consider petitioner's claim in their six-month audit exercise and release payment if admissible.

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

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010013002022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/626/2022

¶5

MANIKANTA MACHAHARY

¶6

S/O JARAT MACHAHARY, R/O VILL-THAIGIRGURI, P.O.-HALTUGAON, P.S.KOKRAJHAR, DIST-KOKRAJHAR, BTR, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶9

THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶10

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3

¶11

3:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY BTC P.O. AND DIST-KOKRAJHAR PIN-783370

¶12

4:THE SECRETARY IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR P.O. AND DIST-KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM PIN-783370

¶13

5:THE COUNCIL HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT AND SUPERINTENDING

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT BTC P.O. AND DIST -KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM PIN-783370 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CHAMPAMATI PROJECT DIVISION NO. 1 (IRRIGATION) P.O. -KOKRAJHAR DIST- KOKRAJHAR ASSA

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R DHAR

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 03-02-2022

¶21

Heard Mr. R Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Nayak, learned counsel for all the respondents.

¶22

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner who was issued a preliminary formal work order dated 29.02.2020 by a sanctioned amount of Rs.19,00,000.00 in respect of “C.C. lining of field channel offtaking Ch.480m to RBC-5 (from Ch. 110m to Ch.408m)” under SOPD (BTC). The petitioner submits that he has completed the work to the satisfaction of the authorities and submitted his bill of Rs.18,83,569.00 out of which Rs.12,00,000.00 has been paid but the balance amount of Rs.6,83,569.00 has not been paid. 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

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL SECRETARIAT BODOFA

¶28

NWGWR::KOKRAJHAR

¶29

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

¶30

ORDER

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

WHEREAS it is further noticed that a good number of court cases have been filed

¶34

Page No.# 4/5

¶35

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

¶36

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.”

¶37

Mr. Dhar, 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.

¶38

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.], reported in 2008 [4] GLT 1 [FB] and similar other 194 writ petitions, it is considered appropriate that the respondent authorities

¶39

Page No.# 5/5

¶40

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.6,83,569.00 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.

¶41

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

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

Manikanta Machahary v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikanta Machahary 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

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.

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

Pradip Mashahary Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.