Krishna Enterprise and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010185532020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5534/2020

¶5

KRISHNA ENTERPRISE AND ANR REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI JYOTIRMOY HAZARIKA, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HOUSE NO. 31, SAHID PATH, NEAR RASHMI BHAWAN, JATIA, KAHILIPARA ROAD, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781019, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.

¶6

2: JYOTIRMOY HAZARIKA S/O- SHRI PRAFULLA CHANDRA HAZARIKA R/O- H/NO. 31 SAHID PATH NEAR RASHMI BHAWAN JATIA KAHILIPARA ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781019 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7. 3:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (WR) ASSAM BONGAIGAON.

¶10

Page No.# 2/5

¶11

4:THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (A) ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI. 5:THE COMMANDANT 26TH ASSAM POLICE (IR) BATTALION CHAMRASALI SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR 6:PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (BUILDINGS) REP. BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. DHUBRI BUILDING DIVISION DHUBRI. 7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. DHUBRI DHUBRI BUILDING DIVISION DHUBRI. 8:THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GUWAHATI DISPUR- 781006

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R SINGHA,

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, PWD,SC, FINANCE

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶15

ORDER

¶16

19.05.2025

¶17

1 . Heard Mr. R. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6, 8 & 7.

¶18

Page No.# 3/5

¶19

2. The petitioner’s case is that pursuant to an NIT dated 14.08.2019, issued by the office of the Commandant, 26^th AP(IR) Battalion, Chamrasali, South Salmara, Mankachar, the petitioner was awarded contract works for construction of temporary barrack (Nos. 26, 27 & 28) and temporary kitchen (No. 5). The petitioner completed the construction works and consequently, completion certificates were issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dhubri Building Division and the Commandant 26^th AP(IR) Battalion with forwarding letters Nos. Bn.26/IR/Q/Completion report/2019/1022, Bn.26/IR/Q/ Completion report/2019/1023 and Bn.26/IR/Q/Completion report/2019/1028 dated 04.11.2019, issued by the Commandant 26^th AP(IR) Battalion, informing the Addl. Director General of Police, Assam, with regard to the completion of the construction works by the petitioner.

¶20

3. As the petitioner’s contractual dues amounting to Rs. 16,80,990/-, the security deposit of Rs.1,55,760/- and earnest money deposit of Rs. 40,000/was not being released to the petitioner, the petitioner has filed this present writ petition.

¶21

4. The affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2 is to the effect that the petitioner’s contact work had been done under the MOITRI Scheme and as per the procedure to be followed under the MOITRI Scheme, a 3^rd party inspection of the construction works was required to be made. Accordingly, an inspection team, consisting of Sri Kapil Kalita, JE, APHC, Bongaigaon, Harun Ali Ahmed, Faizul Kabir Laskar, AEE, PWD Building Sub-Division, Mankachar and Sri

¶22

Hem Chandra Nath, APS, Dy. SP, 26^th AP(IR) Bn. was constituted. The constituted committee inspected the construction work on 03.10.2020 and

¶23

Page No.# 4/5

¶24

submitted their report dated 02.11.2020 as follows:-

¶25

“1. All works are found as per approved drawing.

¶26

On physical verification and on comparison of estimate of the temporary barracks (28 Nos.) and temporary store (4 Nos.), it was found that the actual construction area of each barrack and store are (9.76 X 4.88) Sqm = 47.60 Sqm which is also found as per drawing. But the estimate prepared against the work was on the area of (18.50 X 5.75) Sqm = 106.37 Sqm and the actual area of each temporary kitchen (5 Nos.) are (6.10 X 4.57) Sqm = 85.50 Sqm which was found to be not in parity with the approved estimate.

¶27

On physical verification of Construction of temporary Assam type six seated sanitary latrine, urinal and bathroom are found as per approved drawing and estimate. It is satisfactory.

¶28

It is seen that some extra items has been done in the construction to complete the works which were not provided in the approve estimate.

¶29

On physical verification some items i.e. doors and floors of temporary barracks No. 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 26, 27 and 28 were found damaged.

¶30

Construction of Overhead tank and water distribution pipe line works have found satisfactory.”

¶31

The report also says that the construction works are not completed as per approved estimate. As such payment could not be released to the petitioner rather he was asked to complete the unfinished work, so that the payment for the actual work could be made.”

¶32

5. Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submits that

¶33

in terms of the 3^rd party inspection report dated 02.11.2020 comprising of Sri Kapil Kalita, Harun Ali Rashid, Faizul Kabir Laskar and Shri Hem Ch. Nath, though the petitioners had entered estimates prepared on the area of 85.80 sqm, which was not in parity with approved estimate, some extra items of work

¶34

Page No.# 5/5

¶35

had been done by the petitioners, in order to complete the construction work, which was not provided in the approved estimate. Mr. K. Gogoi submits that as the petitioners have done work beyond and above the approved estimate, the State respondents will re-verify the claim of the petitioners, by looking into the extra work done by the petitioners beyond the approved estimate. Thereafter, the petitioners would be paid their bills according to the estimate approved by the respondent authorities and also for the extra items of work that has been undertaken by the petitioners.

¶36

6. In view of the submission made by Mr. K. Gogoi and keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have been made to do extra items of work, so that their construction work was completed, this Court directs the respondent nos.5 & 7 to re-verify the bills of the petitioners and pay to the petitioners the admitted amount, including the extra work done by the petitioners which had not been included in the approved estimate. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶37

7. The 3^rd party inspection report, which has been enclosed with the forwarding letter dated 08.05.2025 issued by the Office of the Commandant, 26^th Assam Police Battalion, Chamrasali, Mankachar, is made a part of the record and marked as Annexure-X (Collectively).

¶38

8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Krishna Enterprise and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Enterprise and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 7 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

Mainul Ali Vs the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and 3 Ors.

Bidur Chandra Ray Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Bidur Chandra Ray Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Swapan Kr Ray Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

M/S Sterling Associate Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sraboni Ghosh Vs the Hailakandi Municipal Board and 4 Ors.