Md. Deraj Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by non-payment of his contractual dues in relation to “construction of Main Canal M from Ch 575.0M to 2900.0M of PubLatakhat Laljora Bud I/S under AIBP 2009-10.”

¶20

3. Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department submits that the contractual dues of the petitioner, amounting to Rs.17,10,249/- has not been paid, in view of the fact that fund has not been made available to the Irrigation Department. He submits that as and when the fund is made available, the petitioner will be paid his dues.

¶21

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶22

5. The affidavit of the respondent No. 2, who is the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, shows that the claim of the petitioner is an admitted amount. Para 6 of the said affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 is reproduced herein below as follows:-

¶23

“6. That as regard the statement made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition the answering deponent begs to state that the work was initially under the jurisdiction of office of the Executive Engineer, Mangaldai Investigation Division (Irrigation), Sipajhar but due to re-organization of this department, the work is

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

now under the jurisdiction of Mangaldai-Dalgaon-Sipajhar Division (Irrigation), Mangaldoi and accordingly the bill of the petitioner amounting to Rs.29,14,624.00 has been received from the respondent No.4 out of which an amount of Rs. 12,04,377.00 had been paid to the petitioner by the respondent No.4, remaining a balance amount of Rs.17,10,247.00. In view of the above the necessary process will be made to release the said balance amount of Rs.17,10,247.00 to the petitioner again as and when the fund available in the concerned head.”

¶26

6. On the oral prayer made by the petitioner’s counsel, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department is impleaded as respondent No. 5. The petitioner’s counsel shall submit a corrected copy of the cause title to the Registry within 3 days.

¶27

7. Issue notice to the respondent No. 5. Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel, accepts notice for the Finance Department. Extra copies of the writ petition be provided to Mr. M. Bhuyan within two days.

¶28

8. In view of the fact that the amount claimed by the petitioner has been admitted by the Irrigation Department and the only reason given by the Irrigation Department, for non-payment of the admitted amount, is due to lack of funds, the Finance Department would have to make the funds available to the Irrigation Department, for payment of the admitted amount.

¶29

9. In view of the reasons stated above, the respondents shall ensure that funds are made available for payment of the admitted amount to the petitioner. The payment of the admitted amount shall be completed within a period of four

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In this respect, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall ensure that a proposal for sanction of the required fund is made to the Finance Department, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32

10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Md. Deraj Saikia v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Deraj Saikia v. the State of Assam and 3 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

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs M/S Tanor Engineering

M/S John Energy Limited Vs the Oil India Limited and 2 Ors.

M/S Traders (Assam) and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Aditya Dowarah Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Salman Hind Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S Ad Agency Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.