Disposed

Pradip Kumar Das v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC15 Feb 2024WP(C)/2830/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractor sought payment of Rs.21,75,376 contractual dues for road improvement work under the PWD, unpaid because his name was missing from the original chronological liability list. The Court found the claim genuine on the parawise comments and disposed of the petition directing further verification and payment within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Chief Engineer, PWD Roads to verify petitioner's claim and pay admitted dues within three months.

Pradip Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010080692022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2830/2022

¶5

PRADIP KUMAR DAS S/O-LATE ABHAY CHARAN DAS R/O- FATASIL AMBARI NRIPEN BORA ROAD GUWAHATI-781025 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶8

2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS (ROADS) DEPARTMENT (DEVELOPMENT) ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM 3:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS (ROADS) DEPARTMENT (WORKS) ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) ASSSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PWD

¶9

Page No.# 2/4

¶10

DIBRUGARH ROADS CIRCLE DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786001 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD DIBRUGARH LAHOWAL MORAN AND TINGKHONG TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786001 7:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE (BUDGET ) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 -----------Advocate for : MR. A DHAR Advocate for : SC PWD appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

16.02.2024

¶15

Heard Mr. A. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the PWD.

¶16

The petitioner’s grievance is the non-payment of his contractual dues after execution of his contract work, amounting to Rs.21,75,376/-, in connection with the contractual work “Improvement of Metd. Joypur Ali Road in Tengakhat Road Sub-Division under Dibrugarh Road Division, under Non-Plan for 2001-2002

¶17

(Providing W.B.M. Patching, PC & SC etc. at 3^rd to 4^th KM”.

¶18

Page No.# 3/4

¶19

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of WP(C) No. 3862/2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.04.2011, directing the respondents, i.e. the PWD, to deal with the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Tamsher Ali & Etc.Etc vs. State of Assam & Others, reported in 2008 (4) GauLT 1 .

¶20

Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel of the PWRD submits that the parawise comments given by the Executive Engineer, PWRD, Territorial Road Division, Dibrugarh (respondent no.6) which has been sent to the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), has been communicated to the him. In terms of the parawise comments, which has been forwarded by the Executive Engineer, PWRD to the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), vide letter dated 15.02.2024, the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner was verified on the basis of available papers in the office. The name of the petitioner was not found in the original chronological list available in the office for payment of his outstanding liabilities and the said findings were communicated to the Chief Engineer’s office vide letter dated 20.01.2020. The parawise comments further states that the amount of Rs.21,75,376/- was received from the Chief Engineer’s office vide No. DIB/PWR/003-DIV-2021-22(1)-32 dated 22.09.2021.

¶21

Mr. B. Gogoi, submits that in view of the parawise comments, a further verification may be done by the Chief Engineer’s office and thereafter the amount found due, after verification, would be paid to the petitioner.

¶22

On considering the letters dated 15.02.2024 & 20.01.2020 written by the

¶23

Page No.# 4/4

¶24

respondent no.6 and the parawise comments dated 15.02.2024, this Court is of the view that the documents mentioned above imply that the petitioner’s claim is genuine and his name was not considered earlier, due to the petitioner’s name not being mentioned in the original chronological list available with the respondents, for payment of contractual dues. However, as consented by the parties, this writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the Chief Engineer, PWD Roads to have a further verification of the petitioner’s claim with regard to the amount found due by the respondent no.6. After verification of the amount payable to the petitioner, the admitted amount should be paid to the petitioner. The entire exercise should be concluded within a period of 3 (three) months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶25

The above letters dated 15.02.2024 & 20.01.2020 and the parawise comments are made a part of the record and marked as Annexure-X collectively.

¶26

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Pradip Kumar Das v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradip Kumar Das v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Workman of Deha Tea Estate Vs the Management of Deha Tea Estate and Anr.

Kajal Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

M/S. Shiv Steel Industries Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

M/S No. 10 Kolong Nodi Part-Iv, Min Samabai Samiti Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Dinamani Haloi Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

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