Allowed

Dobi Kamum v. the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Mar 2022WP(C)/90/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition seeking payment of admitted contractual dues. The court held that the Executive Engineer's affidavit-in-opposition constituted an admission of liability under Order VIII Rule 5 CPC. The petitioner was directed to receive the amount within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Executive Engineer, PWD, Basar Division, to pay Rs.1,93,248/- within 2 months with 6% interest if not paid within the stipulated period.

Dobi Kamum Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040003172021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 90/2021

¶5

1:Dobi Kamum

¶6

W/O SHRI TAJEN KAMUM, A RESIDENT OF RED PUTU AREA, BASAR, DISTRICT LEPA RADA, AP.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF AP AND 3 ORS.

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (PWD), ITANAGAR, GOVT. OF AP.

¶10

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT ITANAGAR GOVT. OF A P.

¶11

3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DIVISION BASAR AP.

¶12

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD BASAR DIVISION LEPARADA DISTRICT AP

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : Abhai Kumar Singh

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP)

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 03-03-2022

¶19

Heard Mr. J. Lomi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Lowang, learned Senior Government Advocate representing the State respondents.

¶20

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a direction upon the respondents to make payment of the admitted contractual dues of the petitioner.

¶21

It appears from the statements made in para 14 of the writ petition, that the petitioner claims that the PWD had admitted the execution of work assigned during the year 2008-09. The copy of admitted details of pending liability in respect of the petitioner, signed by the Executive Engineer, Basar Division, PWD is annexed as annexure-3 to the writ petition.

¶22

The Executive Engineer, Basar Division, PWD by an affidavit-in-opposition dated 17.12.2021 has offered no comments in respect of the statements made in paragraph-14 of the writ petition. The specific non-denial of liability amounts to admission of the liability in terms of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Basar Division is deemed to have admitted that the petitioner has completed two following works, 1. C/o Nyodu-Sibe Siru road (17 Km), 2. C/o Nyodu-Sibe Siru road (17 Km) and 3. C/o Nyodu-Sibe Siru road (17 Km).

¶23

It is seen that the petitioner has annexed only one work order of the respective work at serial no. 1 of the statement of liability (Annexure-3), which

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

works is found to be approved for Rs.1,93,248/-. Nonetheless the final bill of the works has not been annexed. On a query of the Court, it has been submitted at the Bar that the State of Arunachal Pradesh does have a Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act. The Executive Engineer, PWD, Basar Road Division has not mentioned in his affidavit-in-opposition whether the said Act has scrupulously followed or not.

¶26

Be that as it may be, as the Executive Engineer, PWD, Basar Division (respondent no.4), by filing the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4, has admitted the claim of the petitioner to the extent of Rs.1,93,248/-, this writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the Executive Engineer, PWD, Basar Division (respondent nos. 4) to pay the amount due to the petitioner within a period of 2(two) months from the date of the service of certify copy of this order. It is provided that if the said amount is not paid within the expiry of the period of 2(two) months, the said amount would carry an interest of 6% per annum from the date of default till the sum is actually paid.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Dobi Kamum v. the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dobi Kamum v. the State of Ap and 3 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

Ponung Tayeng Vs The State of Ap and Others

M/s Livi Enterprises Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

M/s Livi Enterprises Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Tasi Tamin Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Tajen Kamum Vs The State of Ap and 3 Others

Akuli Mipi and 3 Ors. Vs Daljit Singh Chawdhary and 5 Ors.