Disposed

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

Gauhati HC7 May 2026WP(C)/7449/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractor sought release of Rs.1,21,548/- due under 2012 work orders under the Flood Management Program. Respondents admitted liability in their affidavit but cited non-receipt of Central funds. Court held it inequitable to withhold admitted dues, directing payment within eight weeks with interest on default.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jugal Kishore Mahanta Vs the State of Assam… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010287502023

2026:GAU-AS:6475

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/7449/2023

¶6

JUGAL KISHORE MAHANTA

¶7

S/O LATE SADANANDA MAHANTA, R/O VILL- BHUTAIGAON, P.O.URIAGAON, P.S.-ITACHALI, DIST-NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782003

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

¶10

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI PIN-781003

¶11

3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER NAGAON AND MORIGAON WATER RESOURCE CIRCLE R K B ROAD HAIBARGAON DIST-NAGAON PIN-782001

¶12

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MORIGAON WATER RESOURCE DIVISION MORIGAON DIST-MORIGAON PIN-782105

¶13

5:UNION OF INDIA

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER MINISTRY OF JAL SHAKTI DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND GANGA REJUVENATION

¶16

6 FLOOR CABIN SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN RAFI MARG

¶17

NEW DELHI-110001

¶18

6:THE BRAHMAPUTRA BOARD ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN GUWAHATI

¶19

Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. T Deuri

¶20

Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. P Bhattacharjee,

¶21

Standing Counsel,

¶22

Water Resource Department

¶23

Ms. A Gayan, CGC

¶24

B E F O R E

¶25

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶26

ORDER

¶27

08.05.2026

¶28

Heard Mr. T Deuri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P Bhattacharjee, the learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department and Ms. A Gayan, the learned CGC, who appears on behalf of Union of India.

¶29

The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to release the outstanding amount of Rs.1,21,548/which was payable to the petitioner.

¶30

Page No.# 3/5

¶31

It is seen from the enclosures to the writ petition that the entitlement of the petitioner of an amount of Rs.1,21,548/- is on account of the work order which was issued in the year 2012.

¶32

The record further reveals that after 11 years, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶33

In the opinion of this Court, the instant writ petition ought not to have been entertained merely on the ground that a representation was submitted by the petitioner in the year 2023 and thereupon approaching this Court.

¶34

Be that as it may, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had issued notice by keeping the maintainability of the writ petition open.

¶35

The record reveals that in the meantime the respondent No.2 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein at paragraph Nos.8, 9 and 10, the amount of Rs.1,21,548/- had been duly admitted as payable to the petitioner. Paragraph Nos.8, 9 and 10 of the said affidavit-in-opposition being relevant are reproduced hereinunder:

¶36

“8. That the deponent begs to state that the petitioner was allotted different work orders Nos:

¶37

1). MGWRD/W-275/Pt-V/2012-13/214-268 DT. 15.09.2012 Bill no. RA-I/MG/1259 dated 22.03.13 with Bill value of Rs.58999.00 and the said bill is already paid.

¶38

2). MGWRD/W-275/Pt-V/2012-13/214-268 Dt 15.09.2012 Bill no. RA-II/MG/700 Dt. 26.03.14 with Bill value of Rs. 43995 with a balance of Rs. 7096.

¶39

3). MGWRD/W-275/Pt-V/2012-13/214-268 Dt. 15.09.2012 Bill No.

¶40

Page No.# 4/5

¶41

RA-III/MG/2301 Dt. 17.03.17 with a balance value of Rs. 114452.

¶42

That the deponent begs to state that the total bill amount for the work done is Rs.2,17,446.00 (Two Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Four Hundred Forty Six) out of which an amount of Rs.95,898/- (Ninety Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Eight) only has already been paid to the petitioner therefore, leaving a total balance amount of Rs.1,21,548/(One Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Five Hundred Forty Eight only) to the petitioner.

¶43

That the deponent begs to state that the said work was executed by the petitioner under the Flood Management Program (FMP) Scheme where both Central Government and State Government used to release their respective share of fund. It is a fact that the remaining balance Rs.1,21,548/- (One Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Five Hundred Forty Eight only) to the petitioner could not be release to the petitioner as full amount of funds is not received by the Water Resource Department from the Central Government but the Department is trying all possible steps for release of fund from the Central Government. Moreover, the Water Resource Department is not making any discrimination in making the payment to the petitioner and payment will be made as soon as the funds is received from the Central Government by the deponent.”

¶44

In view of the above admission on the part of the respondents, 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.

¶45

Page No.# 5/5

¶46

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

¶47

(i). The respondents herein are jointly and severely liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,21,548/- to the petitioner.

¶48

(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 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.

¶49

(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.

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

Comparing Assistant

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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.

Pritam Narzary Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Har Kanta Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.