Rajib Kr. Brahma Vs the Bodoland Territorial Council and 2 Ors.

Heard Mr R Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr R Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr A K Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

¶21

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by failure of the respondent authorities in making payment of the admitted amount of Rs. 87,04,824/-, to the petitioner for the work done by the petitioner as per the work order dated

¶22

8^th of August, 2017, issued to him by the Respondent No. 2, i.e., the Additional Chief Engineer-cum-Director, PWD, BTC. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities in the Department of Public Works Department, BTC, Kokrajhar in the District of Kokrajhar had issued a notice inviting tender for “Improvement of road with heavy sand gravelling from 2 KM of Jomduar to Dainamaro Bund under BTC for 2016-17” under Kokrajhar Road Division”. The petitioner had participated in the tender process and came out to be a successful bidder, whereupon a formal work order bearing number CS234/ACE/BTC/KOK/(R.R)/2016-17, dated 08.08.2017, was issued to the petitioner under the signatures of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Kokrajhar Rural Roads Division. The petitioner was required to proceed with the execution of the said work in accordance with the contract documents.

¶23

The petitioner has stated in his petition that the Executive Engineer, PWD, Kokrajhar Rural Roads Division, made inspection regarding the work executed by the petitioner and issued the work completion certificate on 04.06.2018 and

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

also prepared the final bill and submitted before the Additional Chief Engineer – cum- Director, PWD, BTC, Kokrajhar, for necessary action. Accordingly, the Additional Chief Engineer-cum Director, PWD, BTC, Kokrajhar forwarded the bill to the Joint Secretary for releasing the fund against the work completed by the petitioner. The petitioner had thereafter submitted the bills in accordance with terms of the work order. It is the further case of the petitioner that by an order dated 08.06.2018, issued by the Additional Chief Engineer –cum- Director, PWD, BTC, Kokrajhar, a request for requirement of fund of Rs. 87,04,824/- was made to the Joint Secretary, PWD, BTC, Bodofa Nwgwr, Kokrajhar, in respect of the work in question completed by the petitioner.

¶26

The petitioner further projects that although the bill has been submitted long back and the bill amount is undisputed, but no action has been taken to made the payment of bill to the petitioner, and, therefore, he approached the authority for making the payment as he has already invested huge amount for execution of the work from his own source, but no action has been taken and the amount is lying with the authority. The money against the work has been approved prior to starting the work. The petitioner approached the Executive Engineer as well as the Additional Chief Engineer to take steps to release the money, but the respondent authorities have not taken any steps to release the money of the petitioner, which is due to him.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner has extensively relied upon the contents of the documents annexed to the pleadings to substantiate that it is an admitted position that the work had been executed by the petitioner and the money against the work has also been approved by the respondent No. 2, prior to starting the work. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the letter of the respondent No. 2, forwarding the bill to the Joint Secretary, for

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

releasing the fund of Rs. 87,04,824/- is an admission in itself of the amount due to the petitioner and therefore, it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to make the payment of the bill to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 87,04,824/-, for the works executed by him.

¶30

Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has not been able to dispute the assertion of petitioner that the work as per the work order had indeed been executed by the petitioner and that on an earlier occasion, even a letter requesting requirement of the bill amount had also been forwarded to the appropriate authorities. But the respondent authorities have not taken any steps to release the money to the petitioner. Therefore, in terms of the judgment of this court in the case of Tamshir Ali and others versus State of Assam and others ; reported in (2008) 4 GLT 1 , this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondent authorities, more specifically, the respondent No. 1, i.e. the BTC authorities, to verify the amount payable to the petitioner, taking into account the earlier approval granted, which is not disputed by the respondents. The admitted amount shall be thereafter paid to the petitioner. The entire exercise should be concluded within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶31

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of, without any order as to costs.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Rajib Kr. Brahma v. the Bodoland Territorial Council and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajib Kr. Brahma v. the Bodoland Territorial Council and 2 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

On the Death of Sri Rohitash Prasad Agarwala His Legal Hier Sri Sunil Kejriwal Vs on the Death of Nepal Ch Dey His Legal Heirs Sri Dayal Ch Dey and Others

M/S Utshav Commercial Vs Munna Prasad Gupta, IPS

Sps Construction India Private Limited Vs Union of India and Anr.

M/S Shivam Pipe Industries Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Quippo Oil and Gas Infrastructure Vs the Oil India Limited and 3 Ors.

Sadek Ali Vs the State Bank of India and Anr.