Deben Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010173482024

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:12326

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4337/2024

¶6

DEBEN KALITA S/O- LATE THANESWAR KALITA, R/O- VILLAGE BORAIGAON, P.O AND P.S- TAMULPUR, DIST-TAMULPUR, ASSAM, PIN-781367

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶9

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

¶10

PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-36.

¶11

3:THE SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR DIST- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN-783370

¶12

4:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER (PHE) CUM DIRECTOR PHED

¶13

BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR DIST- KOKRAJHAR

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

ASSAM PIN-783370

¶16

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER O/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHE) BAKSA DIVISION MUSALPUR DIST- BAKSA ASSAM PIN-78137

¶17

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. Hatimuria, Advocate

¶18

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Muchahary, Standing Counsel Mr. I. Borthakur, Standing Counsel

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 10.09.2025

¶22

Heard Mr. J. Hatimuria, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Muchahary, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the BTC and Mr. I. Borthakur, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the PHE Department.

¶23

The petitioner herein is aggrieved on account of the nonpayment of the dues to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10,28,540/- which the petitioner claims to be entitled on account of the work that was duly completed.

¶24

The materials on record show that on 04.05.2018, the

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

respondent No. 3 i.e. the Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar issued a letter to the Additional Chief Engineer (PHE)cum-Director, PHED, BTC, Kokrajhar whereby administrative approval was accorded for providing drinking water supply at Rani Chowk of Gopinathpur Village under Baksa (PHE) Division, Mushalpur under SOPD for the year 2018-19. The petitioner was allotted the said work pursuant to a tender process with a total tender value of Rs. 14,85,953/-. The petitioner duly completed the said work. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-, however, an amount of Rs. 10,28,540/- remained pending.

¶27

The petitioner, on various occasions, submitted representations before the Respondent Authorities. However, the Respondent Authorities did not consider the petitioner’s requests, for which, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶28

The records reveal that vide an order dated 30.08.2024 notice was issued. It is further seen that the respondent No. 4 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein at paragraph No. 7, the respondent No. 4 has duly admitted that an amount of Rs. 10,28,840/- is outstanding and payable to the petitioner. The paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the said affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4 being relevant, are reproduced herein under:

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

“7. That with regard to the statements made in Paragraph no. 7 and 8 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was released against the final bill of Rs. 14,78,840/- only for the work mentioned above. Therefore, an amount of Rs.10,28,840/- only has been remaining outstanding

¶31

That, with regard to the statements made in Paragraph nos. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 the deponent begs to state that as per directives of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, the Department has duly examined the claims made by petitioner and the same is found admissible. It is stated that the amount is already included against Sl. No. 75 in the liability list prepared, audited and submitted by M/s NITCON, 2nd Floor, Unit No.E2F, Godrej Enternia Corporate Park, Industrial Area Phase - 1 Chandigarh- 160002, which was engaged by BTC Authorities for audit purposes of pending liability created by previous government. The assessed liability (as per available pro-forma Bill) amounts to Rs. 10,28,840/-only. The deponent further states that all genuine liabilities will be settled by BTC from the amount earmarked from SOPD Budget of PHE every year to settle the liabilities, as per chronological list of liabilities submitted by NITCON and as per available of fund following the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court Judgment in the case of Thamser Ali-Versus-The State of Assam and Others.”

¶32

Taking into account that it is an admitted stand on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs. 10,28,840/-, this Court disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:

¶33

(i) The petitioner herein is entitled to an amount of Rs. 10,28,840/-. The said amount be paid to the petitioner after carrying out the necessary statutory deduction (if so

¶34

Page No.# 5/5

¶35

required).

¶36

(ii) The said amount be paid to the petitioner within a period of 6 (six) months from the date a certified copy of the instant order is served upon the respondent No. 4 i.e. the Additional Chief Engineer (PHE)-cum-Director PHED, BTC.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Deben Kalita v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deben Kalita 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rinty Mushahary and Anr. Vs Central Bank of India and Anr.

Rofiqul Islam and 11 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Smti. Rinti Mushahary Vs Central Bank of India and Anr.

Abul Kalam Azad Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Deben Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Altaf Ahmed Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.