Pradip Kumar Agarwalla Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Heard Mr. D.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Assam, for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned State Counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶22

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondent authorities for payment of an admitted amount of Rs.6,46,294/(Rupees six lakh forty six thousand two hundred ninety four) only, for the works executed by the petitioner under the flood management programme and antierosion measures.

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that he is a contractor by profession and being the Government Registered Contractor, he executes different contract and supply works under the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Mangaldoi since last two years under different schemes of the Government of Assam.

¶24

Pursuant to the tender, the petitioner was awarded the works of: (1) R/S of Bornadi L/B embkt from Patgirichuba to R.K. embkt (ch 0m to 20000m) under FMP and (2) Anti-erosion measures in B/B of river Mangaldoi to protect Mangaldoi town and its adjoining areas, vide orders dated 30.10.2015 and

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

19.11.2016.

¶27

Mr. D.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has executed the work as awarded by the respondent authorities. Thereafter, he submitted the bill amounting to Rs.14,82,464/- (Rupees fourteen lakh eighty two thousand four hundred sixty four) only, out of which part payment has been made. He submits that an amount of Rs.6,46,294/- (Rupees six lakh forty six thousand two hundred ninety four) only has not been paid despite repeated request to the respondent authorities. He submits that the amount claimed by the petitioner is an admitted one and there is no dispute regarding execution of works. The respondents have clearly admitted the said outstanding amount, which is reflected from the statement showing the liabilities, issued by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Mangaldoi. Therefore, he prays that the respondent authorities may be directed to pay the aforesaid admitted amount to the petitioner.

¶28

Mr. C. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department submits that out of the total bill amount of Rs.14,82,464/- (Rupees fourteen lakh eighty two thousand four hundred sixty four) only, part payment of Rs.8,36,170/- (Rupees eight lakh thirty six thousand one hundred seventy) only has been made to the petitioner and admittedly an outstanding liability of Rs.6,46,294/- (Rupees six lakh forty six thousand two hundred ninety four) only, as claimed by the petitioner is yet to be paid due to non-availability of fund at present.

¶29

Referring to the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent No.3, the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Mr. Sarma, learned standing

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

counsel submits that the authorities have assures that the pending liability would be settled immediately when the funds for the aforesaid scheme is received from the Central Government, as the same is being actively pursued by taking all necessary steps for release of the fund.

¶32

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and considering that the petitioner has executed the aforesaid works and has submitted the bill as per the work orders and part payment of Rs.8,36,170/(Rupees eight lakh thirty six thousand one hundred seventy) only has been made to the petitioner as well as considering the assurance by the respondents that the outstanding liability would be settled immediately, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to verify and if admitted, the same be paid to the petitioner.

¶33

Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent authorities in the Water Resources Department shall verify the claim of the petitioner and if found admitted, shall release the aforesaid outstanding amount of Rs.6,46,294/(Rupees six lakh forty six thousand two hundred ninety four) only, to the petitioner within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶34

The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of in terms above.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Pradip Kumar Agarwalla v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradip Kumar Agarwalla 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

Shri. Jongpongchiten Longchar Vs the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Shri. Mahendra Sharma Vs the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.

Shri. Dinpingmak and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.

Mustafa Zakir Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ashok Kumar Agarwalla Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ganga Deka Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.