Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010042182026

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:3367

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/1217/2026

¶6

SANJAY KUMAR SINGH

¶7

A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, PROPRIETOR- SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O- LATE BALRAM SINGH, R/O- CHIRWAPATHY ROAD, TINSUKIA, P.O- TINSUKIA, ASSAM- 786125.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, PARYAVARAN BHAWAN, 1, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI- 110001

¶10

2:NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (NHIDCL) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 3RD FLOOR PTI BUILDING 4 PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI- 110001

¶11

3:THE GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECTS) NHIDCL SARAF TOWER 1ST FLOOR OPP. DON BOSCO SCHOOL MAZGAON TEZPUR- 784001 ASSAM 4:M/S RISHA INFRASTRUCTURE REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR/AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY B.K KAKATI ROAD

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

JAY JAY TOWER GUWAHATI- 78100

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., MR H AGARWAL,MS. B SOREN,MS M ZOMUANPUII,MR J SINGH,MR H AGARWAL,MRS J M KONWAR

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MS M NIROLA (R2, R3),MR. P J SAIKIA, SR. ADV (R2, R3),SC, NHIDC

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 06.03.2026

¶19

Heard Mr. H. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. M. Nirola, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3.

¶20

In view of the request made by the learned counsel for the afore-mentioned parties to take up the writ petition for final consideration, the writ petition is taken up for consideration. Mr. Saikia has submitted that as on date, there has not been any formation of contract with the respondent no. 4 and therefore, the writ petition can be taken up dispensing with the appearance of the respondent no. 4.

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner, in brief, that the petitioner was awarded a EPC Contract : ‘Constitution of Service Road and RCC Drain on both sides of NH-37A from Kaliabor-Tiniali [Km 0.000] to Kolong Bridge [Km 0.600] in Nagaon District, Assam under EPC Mode’ [‘the Contract-Work’, for short] pursuant to his selection as the successful bidder in the competitive bidding process initiated for award of the Contract-Work.

¶22

The petitioner has approached this Court by the instant writ petition to assail an Order of Suspension dated 24.02.2026 and has contended that the balance work has been illegally allotted to the respondent no. 4 invoking Clause 22 of the Contract Agreement without any

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

prior notice to the petitioner.

¶25

It is the further case of the petitioner that he has already achieved physical progress to the extent of 97.5% and the value of the balance 2.5% work is only Rs. 7,50,000/-. But, the respondent NHIDCL authorities have suspended the Contract-Work and by preventing the petitioner from executing the remaining 2.5% part of the Contract-Work, the respondent NHIDCL authorities have allotted the balance 2.5% work to the respondent no. 4 at a contract value of Rs. 39,53,182/- which is exhorbitant. It is further submitted that, subject to availability of the materials, the petitioner could have completed the remaining part within a period of one week.

¶26

Mr. Agarwal has further submitted that the petitioner in Paragraph-33 has categorically stated that though the respondent NHIDCL authorities vide Communication dated 25.02.2026 have projected that the respondent no. 4 has commenced execution of the balance work with effect from 25.02.2026, but, the respondent no. 4 has not commenced any measurable work at the project site till the filing of the writ petition.

¶27

Mr. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent NHIDCL authorities has submitted that the petitioner had failed to execute the Contract-Work within the scheduled time-period and the extension periods. Notwithstanding the claims made by the petitioner as regards the percentage of work he has carried out so far, if the petitioner gives an undertaking that he would complete the remaining part of the Contract-Work within a period of fifteen days then the respondent NHIDCL authorities would keep the order of suspension in abeyance for such period of fifteen days so that the petitioner can complete the remaining part of the Contract-Work.

¶28

In response, Mr. Agarwal has submitted that he has received clear instruction from his client that the petitioner would be able to complete the remaining part of the Contract-Work within a period of twenty days from today as per the Contract Value and such period includes the period required for mobilization of manpower, machinery and materials. He has further submitted, on instruction, the petitioner will not take any plea regarding non-availability of manpower, machinery, materials, etc. or any other plea including any plea for any

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

enhancement of the Contract Value in the event he fails to execute the remaining part of the Contract-Work within the period of twenty days from today and then the respondent NHIDCL authorities would be at liberty to proceed further in terms of the Contract Agreement and to execute the remaining part of the Contract-Work as per Letter dated 24.02.2026 [Annexure15 to the writ petition].

¶31

In view of such submission made by Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner to grant a period of twenty days to execute the remaining part of the Contract-Work at the Contract Value agreed to by the petitioner, Mr. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that taking into consideration the forthcoming monsoon season and the other procedure involved, the respondent NHIDCL is agreeable to the undertaking given by the petitioner to execute the remaining part of the Contract-Work to achieve 100% progress within a period of twenty days from today, that is, on or before 27.03.2026 and for the said period, the order of suspension would be treated as an order kept in abeyance. He has further submitted that in the event of default of any nature on the part of the petitioner-Contractor, the order of suspension would stand revived and the NHIDCL would proceed to take further action in terms of the Contract Agreement and if required, to execute the remaining part of the Contract-Work through the respondent no. 4 or any other party as per extant procedure.

¶32

Taking note of the above submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that there is no necessity to keep the writ petition pending anymore.

¶33

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to act in accordance with the undertaking, as recorded above. The respondent NHIDCL authorities would allow the petitioner to proceed for executing the remaining part of the Contract-Work on or before 27.03.2026, to the satisfaction of the respondent NHIDCL authorities. It is observed that in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner as the Contractor to execute the Contract-Work fully on or before 27.03.2026, the respondent NHIDCL would be at liberty to take further action in terms of the submission made by Mr. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3, as recorded above, and in view of the undertaking made by the petitioner, without any further reference to this Court.

¶34

Page No.# 5/5

¶35

This Order disposes of the writ petition. Interim order passed earlier stands merged with this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Sanjay Kumar Singh v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Singh v. the Union of India and 3 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

Bikash Talukdar and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Prasanta Kr. Deka Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Ms B. K. Associates and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

M/S Ujjal Dj Enterprise Jv Vs the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (Gmc) and 6 Ors.

Capol and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

M/S G. B. Construction Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.