M/S Sky Enterprise Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010228592023

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/5972/2023

¶6

M/S SKY ENTERPRISE

¶7

A GOVT CONTRACT AND GENERAL ORDER SUPPLIER HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SUDEMPURI P.O. KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM PIN 783370 AND IS REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI MITHUN BRAHMA

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

¶10

REP BY THE COMMISSIONER ANS SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM WPT AND BC DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 6

¶11

2:THE SECRETARY

¶12

TRIBAL AFFAIRS PLAIN BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR DIST KOKRAJHAR PIN 783370

¶13

3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶14

WPT AND BC DEPTT. BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR DIST KOKRAJHAR PIN 783370

¶15

4:THE JOINT SECRETARY

¶16

WPT AND BC DEPTT. BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR DIST KOKRAJHAR PIN 783370

¶17

5:THE SECRTARY

¶18

WPT AND BC DEPTT. BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR DIST KOKRAJHAR PIN 783370

¶19

6:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR CUM CHD

¶20

WPT AND BC DEPTT. BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR DIST KOKRAJHAR PIN 783370

¶21

7:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY

¶22

Page No.# 2/4

¶23

THE GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI

¶24

Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. A HASSAN, MS. R HUSSAIN,MS. P DAS,MR G BAISHYA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC, SC, WPT AND BC,SC, FINANCE

¶25

BEFORE

¶26

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

12.03.2025

¶29

Heard Mr. G. Baishya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K. Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel, BTC and Ms. N. Dey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

¶30

Aggrieved by the non-payment of outstanding amount of Rs. 11,37,42,000/- (Eleven Crore Thirty Seven Lakhs Forty Two Thousand) only for supply of LED Bulb, 15 Watt Syska/Phillips bulbs for ST/SC/OBC, BPL beneficiaries in the BTC area, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction for payment of the said amount.

¶31

The petitioner is a registered firm dealing with the Government contract and general order of suppliers. Pursuant to the quotation dated 05.09.2019 issued by the i/c Addl. Director cum CHD, WPT & BC Department Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar, the petitioner firm was awarded the work of supply of LED bulbs (Syska/Phillips 15 Watt) for distribution to the ST/SC/OBC, BPL beneficiaries in the BTC area for an amount of Rs. 11,37,42,000/- (Eleven Crore Thirty Seven Lakhs Forty Two Thousand) only. Accordingly, the petitioner has

¶32

Page No.# 3/4

¶33

supplied the LED bulbs (Syska/Phillips 15 Watt) which has been duly acknowledged by the respondent authorities. However, despite repeated approaches, the respondent authorities have failed to pay the said amount.

¶34

Mr. G. Baishya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount claimed by the petitioner is an admitted amount, as the same is in respect of the supply order issued by the respondent authority, which the petitioner has executed and has been duly acknowledged by the respondents. The nonpayment of the outstanding amount of the petitioner has deprived the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent authorities may be directed to release the outstanding amount of Rs. 11,37,42,000/- (Eleven Crore Thirty Seven Lakhs Forty Two Thousand) only.

¶35

Mr. R.K. Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel, BTC fairly submits that there is no dispute regarding the supply of the LED bulbs by the petitioner and the amount claimed by the petitioner. However, due to paucity of fund, the payment could not be released by the respondent authority. He submits that as and when the fund is available, the same shall be released to the petitioner.

¶36

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and considering that the amount claimed by the petitioner is an admitted one for supply of LED bulbs pursuant to the quotation dated 05.09.2019 and the supply of the said LED bulbs has been duly acknowledged, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the payment of the aforesaid amount claimed by the petitioner, as there is no reason as to why the payment should be denied to the petitioner.

¶37

In view of above, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities in the BTC to pay the amount

¶38

Page No.# 4/4

¶39

claimed by the petitioner.

¶40

Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent authorities in the BTC shall verify the claim of the petitioner and if found admitted, shall release the above amount claimed by the petitioner within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶41

With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

M/S Sky Enterprise v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sky Enterprise v. the State of Assam and 6 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

Sri Sri Athkhelia Namghar and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 15 Ors.

Sri Sri Athkhelia Namghar and Another Vs the State of Assam and 15 Ors.

Tarun Chandra Gayan and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Gopendra Namasudra and 103 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 12 Ors.

M/S. Bajrang Bali Roller Flour Mills and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Ganga Dhar Das and 3 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.