Disposed¶30

Krishna Kanta Biswas v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Mar 2025WP(C)/3710/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP(C)/3710/2024, Gauhati High Court, order dated 07-03-2025, Kardak Ete, J.; Krishna Kanta Biswas v. State of Assam & 4 Ors; Irrigation Department; contractor's bill payment; Solar powered MDTW scheme Guimari and Dakhinpat; SOPD 2017-18; Nagaon Division (Irrigation); Rs.7,35,237/-; claim admitted/undisputed; Chief Engineer Chandmari directed to verify within two months and pay within three months; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2, the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Chandmari, to verify the petitioner's claim of Rs.7,35,237/- within two months and, if found admitted, to pay the same to the petitioner within three months thereafter. ¶30

Krishna Kanta Biswas Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010142272024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3710/2024

¶5

KRISHNA KANTA BISWAS

¶6

S/O- BIMAL BISWAS, R/O- VILL.- MALPUTA, WARD NO. 10, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782105.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

¶9

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

¶10

MINOR IRRIGATION CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003.

¶11

3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NAGAON DIVISION NAGAON (IRRIGATION) DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001.

¶12

4:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NAGAON SUB-DIVISION (IRRIGATION) NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001.

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER NAGAON CIRCLE (IRRIGATION) NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M R LASKAR, MR N SARMA

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION,

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 07-03-2025

¶20

Heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

2. By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for release of an amount of Rs.7,35,237/- (rupees seven lakh thirty five thousand two hundred thirty seven) only due to the petitioner for execution of work including of construction of Solar powered MDTW scheme at Guimari (Revenue village-Guimari, GP-Baglajan, Dev- Block-Raha) and Solar Powered MDTW Scheme at Dakhinpat (Rev. Village-Dakhinpat, Gp-Dakhinpat, Development Block-Pakhimora under Nagaon Division (irrigation) under SOPD for the year 2017-18.

¶22

3 . The petitioner is a contractor by profession. The Executive Engineer, Nagaon issued a work order in favour of the petitioner for construction of Solar powered MDTW scheme at Guimari (Revenue village-Guimari, GP-Baglajan, Dev- Block-Raha) and Solar Powered MDTW Scheme at Dakhinpat (Rev. Village-Dakhinpat, Gp-Dakhinpat, Development Block-Pakhimora under Nagaon Division (irrigation) under SOPD for the year 2017-18.

¶23

The petitioner completed the work of construction of Solar powered MDTW scheme at Guimari (Revenue village-Guimari, GP-Baglajan, Dev- Block-Raha) and Solar Powered MDTW Scheme at Dakhinpat (Rev. Village-Dakhinpat, Gp-Dakhinpat, Development

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

Block-Pakhimora under Nagaon Division (irrigation) under SOPD for the year 2017-18 and the same has been certified by the Superintendent Engineer, Nagaon.

¶26

Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents has conceded that the petitioner appears to have completed the works of Solar powered MDTW scheme at Guimari (Revenue village-Guimari, GP-Baglajan, Dev- Block-Raha) and Solar Powered MDTW Scheme at Dakhinpat (Rev. Village-Dakhinpat, Gp-Dakhinpat, Development BlockPakhimora under Nagaon Division (irrigation) under SOPD for the year 2017-18.

¶27

Perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition indicates that the writ petitioner has completed the work as per the work order issued by the respondent authorities and submitted the bill amount of Rs.7,35,237/- (rupees seven lakh thirty five thousand two hundred thirty seven), which appears to be admitted one.

¶28

Having considered that the claim of the petitioner is not disputed by the Department, I am of the considered view that it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities particularly, the respondent No.2 Chief Engineer, Chandmari to verify the claim of the petitioner and, if found admitted, the same shall be paid to the petitioner.

¶29

Accordingly, it is directed that the Chief Engineer, Chandmari shall verify the claim of the petitioner within a period of two months from today and if found admitted, same shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months thereafter.

¶30

With the above directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Krishna Kanta Biswas v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kanta Biswas v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijit Kumar Saikia Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Pradip Chutia Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Abdul Awal Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Madhab Deka Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Krishna Kanta Biswas Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

M/S. Indomech Industries Vs Assam Higher Secondary Education Council