A contractor sought payment of balance contractual dues of Rs. 70,989 for bridge repair works under PWD, Karimganj Division. Respondents admitted liability of Rs. 77,141, omitting statutory deductions. The court directed payment of the correct amount of Rs. 70,989 within two months and disposed of the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010117792023
2025:GAU-AS:5865
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3159/2023
SHAHID AHMED
S/O LATE ABDUL RAQUIB AHMED, VILL-DALOPAR, P.O.-ASHALKANDI788723, DIST-KARIMGANJ, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM P.W.D. DISPUR GUWAHATI-6
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6
4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D. (ROADS) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
P.W.D. (ROADS) KARIMGANJ DIVISION KARIMGANJ ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B MALAKAR, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, PWD,SC, REVENUE
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER
Date : 13.05.2025
Heard Mr. B. Malakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. R. M.
Barooh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing
Page No.# 2/3
Counsel, PWD. Also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. R. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.
2. The petitioner’s grievance is that the petitioner has not been paid his balance contractual dues amounting to Rs. 70,989/-, out of the total amount of Rs. 1,38,141/-.
3. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner, who is a contractor, had been given various works under the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Karimganj Division, in respect of repairing works of SPT Bridge No. 4/2 on Kanaibazar Sonatala Road, Karimganj district. Out of the total value for the work amounting to Rs. 1,38,141/-, Rs. 61,000/- has been given to the petitioner. Also, various statutory deductions were made from the bills of the petitioner, in terms of the memorandum of payments issued by the Accounts Officer, PWD, Rural Road Karimganj Division, thereby leaving a balance amount of Rs. 70,989/- payable to the petitioner. He accordingly submits that the said amount of Rs.70,989/should be paid to the petitioner.
4. Ms. R. M. Barauh, learned counsel appearing for the PWD submits that as per para-wise comments received by her, pursuant to the forwarding letter dated 09.01.2025, issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD (Border Roads & NEC Works), Assam, Rs.61,000/- had been paid to the petitioner and due to paucity of funds, the remaining liability payable to the petitioner is Rs. 77,141/-.
5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. As can be seen from the writ petition, the petitioner’s claim is for payment of the balance amount of Rs. 70,989/-. However, the para-wise comments that
Page No.# 3/3
has been submitted for perusal of this Court, shows that the respondents admit to the fact that they are liable to pay to the petitioner Rs. 77,141/-. This discrepancy in the amounts to be paid to the petitioner, appears to be due to the fact that the respondents have forgotten to take into account the statutory deduction that had only been made by them, from the total amount that is payable to the petitioner and which is reflected in Annexure-1-B of the writ petition.
7. In view of the fact that the respondents have admitted the liability to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 77,141/-, which should actually have been Rs.70,989/-, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be paid the correct amount due to him, i.e., Rs.70,989/-. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner the correct amount of Rs. 70,989/-, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
8. The para-wise comments and the forwarding letter dated 09.01.2025, issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD (Border Roads & NEC Works), Assam are made a part of the record and marked as Annexure-X collectively.
9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents are liable to pay the petitioner contractor's balance contractual dues of Rs. 70,989 for road repair works.
Shahid Ahmed
The State of Assam
The Commissioner Secretary to the Govt. of Assam P.W.D.
The Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Revenue Department
The Chief Engineer P.W.D. (Roads) Assam
The Executive Engineer P.W.D. (Roads) Karimganj Division
Michael Zothankhuma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
