Disposed

Nripen Hazarika v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Feb 2024WP(C)/221/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court directed respondent authorities to verify the petitioner's claim of unpaid bills of Rs. 87 Lakhs for completed bridge construction work and instructed payment of the admitted amount within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Verified the claim of the petitioner once again, and thereafter, the respondents should pay the admitted amount to the petitioner within one month after verification.

Nripen Hazarika Vs the Union of India and 4… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010008082024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/221/2024

¶5

NRIPEN HAZARIKA

¶6

SON OF LATE RUPARAM HAZARIKA, RESIDENT OF- MILAN NAGAR, NEAR MACHARHAT SHIV MANDIR, P.O. AND P.S.- JORHAT, DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785001.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEVELOPMENT OF NORTH EASTERN REGION (DONER), EAST BLOCK-10 (LEVEL-4), R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.

¶9

2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

¶10

MINISTRY OF DEVELOPMENT OF NORTH EASTERN REGION (DONER) EAST BLOCK-10 (LEVEL-10) R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI- 110066.

¶11

3:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS) DISPUR GUWAHATI-06.

¶13

4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS) CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-03.

¶14

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARMENT (ROADS) JORHAT DIVISION DISTRICT- JORHAT ASSAM

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. N GOGOI

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 02.02.2024

¶21

Heard Mr. S. K. Ghosh, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Ms. N. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. R. Adhikari, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PWD for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5.

¶22

The petitioner is aggrieved against the non-payment of contractual bills amounting to Rs. 87 Lakhs only, payable to the petitioner, relating to the awarded contractual work circulated vide NIT dated 14.11.2011 for construction of RCC Bridge No. 13/1, 13/2 & 20/2 on Mohbondha Road under NLCPR for 2010-11 in Jorhat District, by the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region (DoNer), although the entire work had been completed in 2020. The authority of Assam PWD issued work completion certificate along with admitted bills and also released the state share against the said work and submitted the same to the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region (DoNER), New Delhi. However, the Ministry of DoNER has not released the amount till date.

¶23

As the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Jorhat Division, has given a completion certificate, stating that Rs. 92.70 Lakhs is payable to the petitioner from the funds to be given by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner should be verified by the respondents once

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

again and thereafter, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 should pay the admitted amount to the petitioner.

¶26

The completion certificate dated 29.01.2022 issued by the respondent No. 5 states as follows:-

¶27

“Name of the Project: "Construction of RCC Bridge No. 13/1, 13/2 & 20/2 on Mohbondha Road under NLCPR for 2010-11 in Jorhat District under Jorhat PWRD, Rural Road Division".

¶28

Certified that a total sum of Rs. 614.33 Lakhs was made available as assistance under the Non Lapsable Central Pool of Resources as per agreed cost recommended by the Department of Development of North Eastern Region against the sanctioned project "Construction of RCC bridge No. 13/1, 13/2 & 20/2 on Mohbondha Road under NLCPR for 2010-11 in Jorhat District under Jorhat PWRD, Rural Road Division" and a sun Rs. 437.14 Lakh from Grant Share and a sum of Rs. 52.34 Lakhs from State Share has been fully utilized for works for which it was sanctioned. Utilization Certificate is enclosed/has been furnished.

¶29

It is also certified that the following components of the project in accordance with the Detailed Project Report has been physically completed out of the above funds: Contractor has completed the work with his own resources.

¶30

Bridge Proper = 100%

¶31

1. Approaches 100%

¶32

1. Protection 100%

¶33

1. Road Work 100%

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

The Project has been completed on 18/10/2020 and the benefits accrued from the project are as follows:

¶36

Alternate connectivity to Jorhat, Golaghat, Titabor & Dergaon thus providing an important road link to Jorhat to Golaghat for a large number of people.

¶37

Lateral connectivity to greater Mohbondha, Panichakua, Charingia, Dohutia area having highly agricultural potential and transportation of agricultural products.

¶38

Fulfills long time needs to a greater population as well as road facility for educational Institutions/Govt. Offices. Tea gardens etc.

¶39

Financial Liability yet to be cleared to the contractor is Rs. 92.70 Lakhs."

¶40

As the petitioner in this writ petition is claiming Rs. 87 Lakhs, as unpaid contractual bills, the respondents shall verify the claim of the petitioner once again, with regard to his unpaid contractual bills, within a period of (2) two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the admitted amount should be paid to the petitioner by the respondents, within a further period of 1 (one) month.

¶41

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

Nripen Hazarika v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nripen Hazarika v. the Union of India and 4 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

Raj Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Sahidul Alom Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

A.N.E. Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Tapojyoti Sengupta Vs Gauhati Municipal Corporation and 6 Ors.

Jyoti Prasad Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Dethsung Khr Daimary Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.