Dhrubajit Baishya Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Heard Mr. BK Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. SP Choudhury, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶25

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the non-payment of his dues amounting to Rs.14,61,516/- in respect of the two supply orders dated 12.01.2020 and 07.09.2021 respectively “for supply of Ferric Alum, Bleaching Powder and Hydrate lime for the month of January and February, 2020 for different water supply/scheme under Jorhat Division as well as for supply of Ferric Alum, Bleaching Powder and Hydrate lime for the month of September 2021 for different water supply/scheme under Jorhat Division ”.

¶26

Page No.# 3/5

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that he is a certified Government Chemical Supplier and Contractor engaged in execution of several Civil Works and accordingly contractual supply orders were awarded by the respondent authorities, which the petitioner had duly executed within the stipulated time. It is the further case of the petitioner that although the above-mentioned supply orders under the Executive Engineer Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewarage Board Jorhat Division were completed, the outstanding bill amount has not been cleared till date inspite of repeated approaches. The total amount claimed to be payable to the petitioner is Rs.14,61,516/-.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been pursuing the matter bona fidely and diligently with the respondents, but the respondent authorities have not shown any interest in making payment of the admitted amount of Rs.14,61,516/- due to the petitioner, for which the petitioner is facing hardship. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent authorities have failed to discharge their duty in accordance with law and the same has caused prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

¶29

Mr. SP Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewarage Board submitted that he has not received any instruction in the matter. Be that as it may, the learned Standing Counsel of the Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewarage Board, however, submitted that as to whether the petitioner was awarded the contracts in question and whether the petitioner had duly supplied the articles and is entitled to the amount claimed or any other amount would be subject to certain verifications which are required to be conducted by the respondent authorities.

¶30

Page No.# 4/5

¶31

This Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner has been awarded the contracts and thereupon has duly completed the supply orders, the respondent authorities cannot deny the petitioner to the contractual amount which the petitioner is entitled to as per law as well as the terms of the agreement.

¶32

It is the opinion of this Court that the same would require certain verifications to be carried out by the concerned respondent authorities.

¶33

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

¶34

(i) The respondent authorities shall verify as to whether the contracts in question were awarded to the petitioner and as to whether the petitioner had successfully executed the supply orders, i.e. “for supply of Ferric Alum, Bleaching Powder and Hydrate lime for the month of January and February, 2020 for different water supply/scheme under Jorhat Division as well as for supply of Ferric Alum, Bleaching Powder and Hydrate lime for the month of September 2021 for different water supply/scheme under Jorhat Division”.

¶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

(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.1, i.e. the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of

¶38

Page No.# 5/5

¶39

Assam, Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, Guwahati.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Dhrubajit Baishya v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhrubajit Baishya 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nilufa Begum Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

The State of Assam and 2 Ors. Vs Mahalaxmi Enterprises and 3 Ors.

Ravi Brothers Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

M/S S. D. Enterprise Vs State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Ms Manaranjan Brahma Enterprise Vs Akash Deep

Charu Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.