Mukut Ranjan Sarmah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

6:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER MINISTRY OF JALASAKTI DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES RIVER DEVELOPMENT AND GANGA RENOVATION NEW DELHI-110001 7:THE BRAHMAPUTRA BOARD ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN BASISTHA GUWAHATI-781029 8:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON KRISHNANAGAR BELTOLA GUWAHATI-78102

¶21

Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. KR Patgiri

¶22

Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. P Bhattacharjee, Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department Ms. A Gayan, CGC Mr. C Barua, Standing Counsel, AG, Assam

¶23

B E F O R E

¶24

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

ORDER

08.05.2026

Page No.# 3/5

Heard Mr. KR Patgiri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P Bhattacharjee, the learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department; Ms. A Gayan, the learned CGC, who appears on behalf of Union of India and Mr. C Barua, the learned Standing Counsel, AG, Assam

¶29

The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to release the outstanding amount of Rs.3,48,250/which was payable to the petitioner.

¶30

It is seen from the enclosures to the writ petition that the entitlement of the petitioner of an amount of Rs.3,48,250/- is on account of work order which was issued in the year 2014.

¶31

The record further reveals that after 10 years, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶32

In the opinion of this Court, the instant writ petition ought not to have been entertained merely on the ground that representation was made by the petitioner and thereupon approaching this Court.

¶33

Be that as it may, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had issued notice on 30.10.2024.

¶34

The record reveals that in the meantime the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein at paragraph 10, the said respondents have discharged its responsibility by stating that the role of the Central Government is limited to examination, approval and realization of such bills as and when submitted. It was accordingly stated in the said affidavit that the responsibility for payment of the amount of Rs.3,48,250/- to the petitioner lies with the Government of Assam. Paragraph No.10 of the said affidavit-inopposition being relevant is reproduced hereinunder:

¶35

Page No.# 4/5

¶36

“10. That in view of the above, it is submitted that the Department of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation has duly discharged the responsibility entrusted to it, insofar as the instant project is concerned, by issuance of the requisite mother sanction in accordance with the extant guidelines. The submission of bills for release of Central Assistance rests with the State Government, while the role of the Central Government is limited to examination, approval and realization of such bills as and when submitted. Accordingly, in the instant case the responsibility of payment of Rs. 3,48,250 (Rs. Three Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only) to the petitioner lies with the Government of Assam.

¶37

In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that the Department of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation may kindly be exempted from the list of respondents the present matter.”

¶38

In view of the above statement on the part of the respondent Nos.6 and 7, this Court finds it pertinent to observe that it would be inequitable in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not to direct the respondents to release the amount to which the petitioner is entitled to.

¶39

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:

¶40

(i). The respondents herein are jointly and severely liable to pay the amount of Rs.3,48,250/- to the petitioner.

¶41

(ii). The said amount be paid to the petitioner within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the respondent No.2 and failing to do so within the time mentioned the said amount shall carry

¶42

Page No.# 5/5

¶43

interest @6% per annum upon the expiry of the period of 8(eight) weeks from the date of service of the certified copy of this order upon the respondent No.2.

¶44

(iii). It is further observed and directed that the interest as directed above would be paid by the concerned respondent Departments and the same shall be thereupon recovered from the salary of the erring officials.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Mukut Ranjan Sarmah v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukut Ranjan Sarmah v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Motilal Rabidas Vs the State of Assam and Othrs

M/S Win Power Infracon LLP and Ors. Vs Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and Ors.

Traders (Assam) Vs Smt. Kavitha Padmanabhan, I.A.S and 2 Ors.

Bhaskar Bora Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Jugal Kishore Mahanta Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Pritam Narzary Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.