Disposed

Pradip Kumar Das v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Sept 2022WP(C)/792/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Chief Minister's Special Vigilance Cell, to submit a report regarding the petitioner's alleged work within one month. The Court held that the mere pendency of an investigation cannot be a reason for withholding the report required by the Joint Secretary to the Chief Minister.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Superintendent of Police, CM's Special Vigilance Cell, to submit the required report to the Joint Secretary, Assam, within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Pradip Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010018822022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/792/2022

¶5

PRADIP KUMAR DAS

¶6

S/O- LATE ABHAY CHARAN DAS, R/O- FATASIL AMBARI, NRIPEN BORA ROAD, GUWHATI-25, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶9

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-03 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶10

3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHIEF MINISTERS SPECIAL VIGILANCE CELL ASSAM SWATANTRA SENANI BHAWAN RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI-32

¶11

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER PWD DIBRUGARH ROADS CIRCLE DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786001

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD DIBRUGARH RURAL ROAD DIVISION DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-78600

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DHAR

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD DEPTT.

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

01.09.2022

¶19

Heard Mr. A Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R Dhar, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 being the authorities in the PWD and Mr. M Chetia, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent No. 3 being the Superintendent of Police, Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell, Assam.

¶20

The petitioner was awarded a contract in the year 2007 for construction of ‘LBT Road to Kachari Pather including cross drainage work and routine maintenance of the work for five years’ under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna (PMGSY) in the Dibrugarh district under the PMGSY package No. AS-06-35. As the petitioner did not complete the work, the contract was terminated and the balance of the work was done by some other contractor.

¶21

In respect of such work, the petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 58/2015 in the Court of the Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati claiming for the contract amount of Rs. 40, 47, 780.42 paisa. By the judgment dated 02.05.2019, the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati held that the

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs. 40, 47, 780.42 paisa with interest of 6% per annum and future interest till the date of realisation of the decreetal amount.

¶24

On the claim of the petitioner for payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 40, 47, 780.42 paisa, the Joint Secretary to the Chief Minister, Assam made a communication dated 25.06.2021 to the Superintendent of Police, Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell requesting for the information whether the work claimed to have been performed by the petitioner falls within an alleged misappropriation of Government funds under PWD (Roads), Dibrugarh Division and whether the work of the petitioner is under investigation by the Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell or the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Assam. By another communication dated 26.07.2021, the Joint Secretary to the Chief Minister, Assam sought for the information from the Superintendent of Police, Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell as to whether the work related to LBT Road to Kachari Pather including cross drainage work and routine maintenance is under investigation by the Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell.

¶25

In response thereof, the Superintendent of Police, Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell by the communication dated 03.08.2021 required the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) to intimate as to whether the petitioner Pradip Kumar Das had constructed the LBT Road to Kachari Pather including cross drainage work and routine maintenance with a contract of Rs. 3, 10, 27, 500/-. In response thereof, the Chief Engineer, PWD(Roads), Assam informed the Superintendent of Police, Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell that in respect of the aforesaid work amounting to Rs. 3, 10, 27, 500/-, the petitioner completed a part of the work and accordingly was paid Rs. 2, 35, 43, 792/- whereas the

¶26

Page No.# 4/5

¶27

balance of the work was allotted to another contractor Bobismrita Chetia Gogoi for an amount of Rs. 79,55, 278/- and the work was completed as on 27.04.2013.

¶28

In the aforesaid circumstance, this writ petition is instituted on the grievance that without there being a report from the Superintendent of Police, Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell, the unpaid contractors bill amount of the petitioner is not being honoured by the departmental authorities. Accordingly, a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell is sought to submit the report as required by the Joint Secretary to the Chief Minister, Assam.

¶29

Mr. M Chetia, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent No. 3 being the Superintendent of Police, Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell refers to a communication by the Additional Director General of Police, Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell dated 15.02.2020 addressed to the Principal Secretary in the office of the Chief Minister, Assam wherein it is stated that in respect of Dibrugarh district, 16 fake works of construction of roads by the PWD(Rural Road) Division is under investigation and in respect of other 31 works, it would be difficult to include in Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell PS Case No. 07/2017. Accordingly, a recommendation was made that a separate enquiry/case may be registered by the CID or Vigilance and Anti Corruption to investigate the other 31 works and a stand is taken that the work performed by the petitioner may also be included in the other 31 works referred in the communication dated 15.02.2020.

¶30

We are not expressing any view whether the work performed by the petitioner would be included in the investigation pertaining to the other 31 works, but of the view that whether or not the work performed by the petitioner

¶31

Page No.# 5/5

¶32

is investigated or would be investigated, the same by itself cannot be a reason for the Superintendent of Police, Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell not to submit the required report to the Joint Secretary, Chief Minister, Assam. We are clarifying that by requiring to submit a report, we do not indicate that everything has to be reported in favour of the petitioner. Whatever may be the actual factual situation, the report may contain the same. But merely because there is an investigation or there is a contemplation of an investigation, it cannot be accepted that the Superintendent will not submit any report.

¶33

Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell is directed to submit the required report containing any information that is required to be provided in such report as per the records of the matter. The report be submitted within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The report be submitted to the Joint Secretary, Assam as provided in the earlier communications dated 25.06.2021 and 26.07.2021.

¶34

We are again clarifying that by requiring the submission of the report, we are not observing anything either in favour or against the petitioner or neither for or against any investigation or proposed investigation that may be undertaken.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Pradip Kumar Das v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradip Kumar Das v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balen Baishya Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Pankaj Hira Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Bidur Chandra Ray Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Anwarul Haque Vs the Assam State Information Commission and 2 Ors.

M/S R a Mazumder and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

M/S R a Mazumder and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.