Disposed

Zeetendra Salai v. Megha Nidhi Dahal

Gauhati HC8 Sept 2024Cont.Cas(C)/145/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition protesting non-payment of dues under an earlier order was disposed of. The Court accepted the respondent's calculation of 30% work completion and directed the Municipal Corporation and Development Department to pay Rs. 1.14 crore within four months of receiving funds, subject to a liberty to file a fresh petition for non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed; GMC and GDD to pay Rs. 1.14 crore within four months of fund receipt; liberty granted for fresh petition on non-compliance.

Zeetendra Salai Vs Megha Nidhi Dahal — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010057052023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/145/2023

¶5

ZEETENDRA SALAI

¶6

S/O LATE SURYA KANTA SALAI, R/O HOUSE NO. 29, SANTIPUR MAIN ROAD, BHARALUMUKH, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781009

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

MEGHA NIDHI DAHAL

¶9

THE COMMISSIONER, GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI, DIST-KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SAURADEEP DEY, MR P H KONWAR

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D SAIKIA (r-1), MR. S BORA (r-1)

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶13

ORDER

¶14

09.09.2024

¶15

Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for the GMC.

¶16

The petitioner claims that he has executed a work for cleaning, desilting and maintenance of some city drains in Guwahati City under the Gauhati Municipal

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

Corporation. According to him, he has not been paid the bills and his contract was terminated.

¶19

In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing writ petition being WP(C) No. 3164/2021 ( Zeetendra Saloi –Vs- The State of Assam and ors ). The said writ petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench under its order dated 20.12.2022 providing that the GMC and GDD authority shall undertake a verification exercise and on the basis of such verification, the amount due to the petitioner be paid. Alleging violation of the aforesaid order dated 20.12.2022, the present contempt petition is filed.

¶20

An affidavit has been filed by the respondent GMC and they have taken a stand that the petitioner has only completed 30% of the work awarded and therefore, after calculation and verification, it was arrived at a value of Rs. 1,14,59,435/- (Rupees One Crore Fourteen Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Five) only to be payable to the petitioner. A copy of such report has also been annexed. The aforesaid paragraph is quoted herein below:-

¶21

“That in view of the calculation above the petitioner is entitled to 30% of the work undertaken valued at Rs. 1,14,59,435/- (Rupees One Crore Fourteen Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Five) only”

¶22

Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits his client will be agreeable if the aforesaid amount is paid at the early date.

¶23

At this stage, Mr. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for the GMC submits that such payment shall be made by GMC within a period of four months on receipt of fund from the Guwahati Development Department [presently named as Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of Assam] as directed in the earlier writ petition being WP(C) No. 3164/2021 ( Zeetendra Saloi –Vs- The State of Assam and ors ).

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

Be that as it may, in view of the admitted position and the settlement arrived at between the parties, the contempt petition stands closed by granting four months further time to GMC and GDD [presently named as Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of Assam] to make such payment as directed by this Court under its order dated 20.12.2022 in WP(C) No. 3164/2021.

¶26

Accordingly the contempt petition stands closed with a liberty to the petitioner to file afresh petition in case of non compliance.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Zeetendra Salai v. Megha Nidhi Dahal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zeetendra Salai v. Megha Nidhi Dahal

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

Tomej Khan Vs Gyanendra Dev Tripathi and Anr.

Dhamor Raijan Fishery Cooperative Society Vs Naren Chandra Basumatary

M/S. Saikhowa Sadiya Min Samabai Samiti Ltd. Vs Sambhaji Narsing Pawar

Minakshi Das Vs Sumit Sattawan IAS

C.Lalkhalha and 15 Ors. Vs Sh Lallawmawma

Viliebei Meru Vs Tensing Rongpi

Nurani Khatun Vs M S Manivannan, I.A.S. and Ors.

Shila Rani Deb Vs Vumlunmang Vualnam and 2 Ors.

Chandan Deb Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Bapan Paul Vs the State of Assam

Prasanta Gayan Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Dwijendra Mohan Goswami and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Dwijendra Mohan Goswami and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Khandakar Jiyaur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.