Disposed

North East Power and Infra Ltd. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Sept 2025WP(C)/7468/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contractor sought release of an admitted outstanding payment for flood damage repair work on NH-51. The court held that want of revalidation and paucity of funds cannot justify withholding an undisputed amount and directed release within four months, with agency charges to be verified against the contract.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to release Rs. 39,15,003/- within four months; agency charges payable if verified under the contract.

North East Power and Infra Ltd. Vs the… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010287412023

2025:GAU-AS:11850

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/7468/2023

¶6

NORTH EAST POWER AND INFRA LTD.

¶7

A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 202, ROYAL VIEW, 2ND FLOOR, B.K. KAKOTI ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI-781007, ASSAM AND HEAD OFFICE AT DEBENDRA NAGAR (JHOOM BASTI), BADARPUR, GHAT, KARIMGANJ, PIN- 788803, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, SRI JAHAR LAL PAUL, SON OF LATE BATAKRISHNA PAUL, R/O- VILL.- KALINAGAR, PART-III, P.S. PANCHGRAM, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN- 788801.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS (B AND NH) DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING AND NH DEPARTMENT BLOCKB, GROUND FLOOR, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GHY-781006.

¶11

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

¶12

PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING AND NH DEPT BLOCK-B GROUND FLOOR ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GHY-781006.

¶13

3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶14

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT KARIMGANJ N.H. DIVISION KARIMGANJ SUBHASH NAGAR

¶15

Page No.# 2/6

¶16

P.O. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SILCHAR N.H. DIVISION SILCHAR CIRCUIT ROAD P.O. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM 5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER P.W.D. GUWAHATI N.H. CIRCLE CHANDMARI GUWAHATI ASSAM 6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ P.O. AND KARIMGANJ ASSA

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : DR ANKIT TODI, MS S AGARWAL,MS M PARBIN

¶18

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

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 02.09.2025

¶22

Heard Mr. A. Todi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the State respondents.

¶23

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to release the admitted amount of Rs. 39,15,003/-, along

¶24

Page No.# 3/6

¶25

with 9% Agency Charges amounting to Rs. 3,52,350/-, on account of execution of the work of “Flood damage repairs on NH-51 for immediate repair from Km 0/00 to 14/064 Km (Karimganj Sutarkandi Road) under Silchar NH Division”.

¶26

3. The petitioner, who is a company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at Ulubari, Guwahati and Head Office at Debendra Nagar, Karimganj, Assam, was awarded the aforesaid work pursuant to NIT dated 22.02.2010.

¶27

4. Mr. A. Todi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has satisfactorily executed the work for which part payments were released against running bills. However, the admitted remaining amount of Rs. 39,15,003/- has not been paid to the petitioner despite several approaches. Mr. Todi, learned counsel, while referring to the reply to notice under Section 80(I) CPC by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Karimganj NH Division, submits that the authorities have clearly admitted the outstanding amount claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the respondent authorities to release the admitted outstanding amount of Rs. 39,15,003/-, with 9% Agency Charges.

¶28

5. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, while placing the written instruction, submits that the amount of Rs. 39,15,003/-, claimed by the petitioner, is, no doubt, an admitted amount and a demand has already been placed before the appropriate authority for release of the amount. However, while placing the demand for payment, it was found the works, particularlyGroup-I & Group-II- in incomplete stages due to unavailability and encroachment of free land for construction of drain and the validity of the works lapsed and needed to be revalidated. Since the issue of revalidation has not

¶29

Page No.# 4/6

¶30

been approved and the demand being not sanctioned, the amount could not be paid to the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the work is required to be revalidated and the amount payable/entitled to the petitioner has to be worked out. Accordingly, some time would be required for completing the process of revalidation and placing the proposal for sanction of funds.

¶31

6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials placed on record.

¶32

7. Admittedly, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Karimganj NH Division, by the communication dated 23.12.2021, in clear terms, has stated that the outstanding bill amount for the works executed by the petitioner, which remains unpaid, is Rs. 39,15,003/-. The proposal of demand to release the said outstanding amount was sent to the competent authority vide letters dated 21.02.2015 and 21.12.2021. It also categorically stated that as soon as the amount would be released, same shall be paid to the contractor.

¶33

8. From the written instruction, as noted above, the stand of the respondent authority is to the effect that proposal for revalidation of the work was initiated and submitted to the competent authority for its approval, however no approval has been granted till date. Consequently, the proposal for sanction of payment has also not been approved, which, according to the respondents, indicates that for want of revalidation and due to paucity of funds, the admitted dues of the petitioner could not be released.

¶34

9. Having considered above and also considering that the only ground for non-release of the admitted outstanding amount is for want of revalidation and

¶35

Page No.# 5/6

¶36

paucity of the fund, I am of the considered view that such grounds cannot justify withholding payment. The requirement of revalidation and sanctioning of funds lies squarely with the respondent authorities and the same cannot be taken as a ground to deny the payment of the admitted outstanding amount. The petitioner, having executed the works, should not be made to suffer due to non-availability of fund or requirement of revalidation, unless the amount claimed by the petitioner is disputed.

¶37

10. In view of above and considering that the claim of the petitioner is an admitted amount, it would not be appropriate to allow delay of the payment of the said amount to the petitioner any further. The respondent authorities are incumbent upon to release the payment of the petitioner as the amount claimed is an admitted one. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to release the payment of the outstanding admitted amount of Rs. 39,15,003/- due to petitioner by providing a reasonable time to make the payment.

¶38

11. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent authorities shall release the admitted outstanding amount of Rs. 39,15,003/- to the petitioner within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶39

12. Insofar as the claim for 9% Agency Charge by the petitioner, the respondent authorities shall examine and verify as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the same in terms of the contract agreement. If found payable, the said amount shall also be released in favour of the petitioner.

¶40

Writ petition stands disposed of in terms above.

¶41

Page No.# 6/6

¶42

The written instruction placed by the learned Additional Advocate General in the form of para-wise comments be kept on record.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

North East Power and Infra Ltd. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

North East Power and Infra Ltd. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anshuman Bhattacharjee Vs the Assam State Election Commission and 4 Ors.

The Indian Oil Corporation Vs Arjun Chandra Barman

Anshuman Bhattacharjee Vs the Assam State Election Commission and 4 Ors.

Ashini Sarkar Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rina Kalita and Anr.

Nirmala Sarma Vs the State of Assam