Shri Kaustav Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006

¶10

2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT

¶11

DISPUR

¶12

GUWAHATI- 781006

¶13

3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR

¶14

GUWAHATI-06

¶15

4:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (I) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06

¶16

5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA ASSAM

¶17

Page No.# 2/5

¶18

6:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-03

¶19

7:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER LOWER ASSAM ZONE WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI-03

¶20

8:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT BARPETA DIVISIO

¶21

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. I. Borthakur, Advocate

¶22

For the Respondent(s) : Ms. P. Chakraborty, Standing Counsel Mr. J. Handique, Standing Counsel

¶23

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Date : 08.06.2026

¶26

Heard Mr. I. Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Ms. P. Chakraborty, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Water Resources Department and Mr. J. Handique, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department.

¶27

The Petitioner herein has approached this Court stating that an amount of Rs. 44,39,542/- had remained outstanding to be paid against a contract work executed by him, i.e., “Immediate

¶28

Page No.# 3/5

¶29

measures to protect Bahari Satra, Fulbari, Bhogerpar and its adjoining areas from the erosion of river Brahmaputra for 200708 under C.R.F” pursuant to a Work Order dated 30.04.2008. The Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No. 934/2014 and the writ petition was disposed of vide an Order dated 21.02.2014 with a direction to the Respondent Authorities to consider the payment of the contractual bill of the Petitioner in terms of the guidelines formulated by the decision in Tamsher Ali Vs. State of Assam & others reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1. When the Petitioner sought information from the Respondent Authorities under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, the Respondent Authorities through the State Public Information Officer informed that the amount has still remained outstanding to be paid. Seeking a direction to the Respondent Authorities to disburse the said amount of Rs. 44,39,542/-, the instant writ petition is filed.

¶30

Ms. P. Chakraborty, the learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department and Mr. J. Handique, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department submitted that the entitlement of the Petitioner would depend upon verification to be carried out by the Respondent Authorities.

¶31

Page No.# 4/5

¶32

Upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that if the Petitioner had completed the abovementioned work as per the terms and conditions agreed upon, the Petitioner should be paid the amount to which the Petitioner is entitled to. However, for the same, verification on the part of the Respondent Authorities would be required.

¶33

This Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:-

¶34

i) The Respondent Authorities shall verify as to whether the Petitioner had successfully executed the work, i.e. “Immediate measures to protect Bahari Satra, Fulbari, Bhogerpar and its adjoining areas from the erosion of river Brahmaputra for 2007-08 under C.R.F”.

¶35

ii) The Respondent Authorities shall also verify as to whether the Petitioner had submitted the requisite documents which are required for the purpose of releasing the amount due as claimed by the Petitioner.

¶36

iii) The Respondent Authorities shall also verify the entitlement of the Petitioner to the dues, and if upon verification in the manner stated above, it is found that the Petitioner is entitled to any such amount, the Respondent Authorities shall pay the same to the Petitioner.

¶37

Page No.# 5/5

¶38

iv) The above exercise be completed within a period of 6 (six) months from the date a certified copy of the instant order is served upon the Respondent No.6, i.e. The Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Shri Kaustav Kumar Das v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Kaustav Kumar Das 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Longtise Y. Sangtam, Vs the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Mrs. Hesheni Sumi Vs the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Angami Women Cooperative Joint Farming Society, Dimapur Vs Shri Kezhagwetuo Peseyie and 9 Ors.

Magbul Hussen Alias Magkbul Hussen and 12 Ors. Vs Union of India and 11 Ors.

Gyan Gourav Min Palan Cooperative Society Limited Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Joynuddin Sheikh Vs the Union of India and Ors.