M/S D J Enterprise Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010036372024

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:15092

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/1063/2024

¶6

M/S D J ENTERPRISE

¶7

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI JYOTI PRASAD BAYAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SON OF LATE KARUNAMOY BAYAN, R/O- EAST JYOTI NAGAR, NEAR ASHADEEP REIDENCY, P.O. BAMUNIMAIDAM, P.S. NOONMATI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN 781020

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006

¶12

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NALBARI PIN- 781335

¶13

5:THE CHAIRPERSON NALBARI MUNICIPAL BOARD NALBARI PIN- 781335

¶14

6:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

NALBARI MUNICIPAL BOARD NALBARI PIN- 78133

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K SINGHA, MR G PATHAK,MR T K DAS

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : SR. GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE DEPTT.

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER

¶21

07.11.2025

¶22

Heard Mr G Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr M Chetia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.

¶23

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by failure of the respondent authorities in making payment of the admitted amounts of Rs. 3,06,456/- and Rs. 2,29,842/- respectively, to the petitioner for the work done by the petitioner as per the work order vide No. NMB/PWD/02/2022-23/06 dated 20.06.2022, issued to him by the Respondent No. 6, i.e., the Executive Officer, Nalbari Municipal Board, Nalbari. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 6 in the District of Nalbari had issued a quotation Notice dated 13.06.2022, vide the aforesaid memo number under Nalbari Municipal Board- “for the supplying of the items of Poclain Excavator with Berger including all maintenance and necessary fuels etc. on monthly hired basis for cleaning/digging of Phulguri and Bhalukmara drainage channel in Nalbari Town to Nalbari Municipal Board”. The petitioner had participated in the tender process and came out to be a

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

successful bidder, whereupon formal work order vide No. NMB/PWD/02/202223/06 dated 20.06.2022, was issued to him by the Respondent No. 6, i.e., the Executive Officer, Nalbari Municipal Board, Nalbari. The petitioner was required to proceed with the execution of the said work in accordance with the contract documents.

¶26

The petitioner has stated in his petition that after completion of the supply/work, the petitioner had submitted the bills Bill No. DJE/22-23/41 dated 06.10.2022, for the period of 20.07.2022 to 31.07.2022, amounting to Rs, 3,06,456/- (Rupees Three Lacs Six Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Six) only and Bill No. DJE/22-23/42 dated 06.10.2022, for the period of 01.08.2022 to 09.08.2022, amounting to Rs. 2,29,842/- (Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty-Two) only, including SGST,CGST and GST etc., which remain unpaid by the respondents till date.

¶27

The petitioner further projects that although the bills have been submitted long back and the bill amount is undisputed, but no action has been taken to make payment to the petitioner and therefore, he made a representation dated 03.07.2023, to the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, requesting for early release of payment against the bills raised. It is pertinent to mention herein that the petitioner has already paid the GST from his end and now he is under financial distress but the respondent authorities did not respond to the prayer of the petitioner for reimbursement of the same.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner has extensively relied upon the contents of the documents annexed to the pleadings to substantiate that it is an admitted position that the work had been executed by the petitioner and therefore, it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to make the payment of the bills to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 3,06,456/-

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

and Rs. 2,29,842/- respectively, for the works executed by him.

¶31

By the order dated 13.10.2025, this Court had observed that although the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had been duly served, there was no appearance on their behalf. This Court had recorded that since the relief was being claimed against the offices of respondent no 5 and 6, a final opportunity was being granted to the respondents to file their response to the writ petition on or before 03.11.2025.

¶32

There is no representation on behalf of the said respondents today also. Therefore, this Court adopts the doctrine of non-traverse and holds that the claim of the petitioner made in the writ petition has not been denied or disputed by the concerned respondents.

¶33

Therefore, in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Tamshir Ali and others –versus- State of Assam and others ; reported in (2008) 4 GLT 1 , this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondent authorities, more specifically, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, i.e., the Chairperson and the Executive Officer, Nalbari Municipal Board, respectively, to verify the amount payable to the petitioner, taking into account the work executed by the petitioner, which is not disputed by the respondents. The admitted amount shall thereafter be paid to the petitioner. The entire exercise should be concluded within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶34

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of, without any order as to costs.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

M/S D J Enterprise v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S D J Enterprise v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Bikrampur Coop. Societies Ltd. and Anr. Vs Narayan Konwar and Anr.

Hellal Khan Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dildar Ali Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Fiddus Ali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Tourist Taxi Management Committee, Gogamukh and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sita Devi Jalan Vs Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. and 4 Ors.