Kamal Uddin Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Heard Mr. K. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Tinlung, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.M. Das, learned standing counsel for the Water Resource department.

¶25

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to make payment of a sum of Rs. 2,91,532/- (Rupees two lakh ninety one thousand five hundred and thirty two only) against a contract work executed by the petitioner in respect of the maintenance and repairing works under the Department of Water Resource, Hailakandi Circle, Hailakandi.

¶26

The petitioner claims to be a contractor under the Water Resource Department, Govt. of Assam who has executed various works in the Departments of the Govt. of Assam.

¶27

The petitioner was issued work orders for execution of the work namely, (1) M & R to protecting the area from Phanirbond to Dullabpur from flooding of River Shingla for 201213 (Breach Closing at Madanpur), (2) M & R to embankment along B/B of river Longai from

¶28

Page No.# 3/4

¶29

Patherkandi to Nilambazar Ph-II (R/B) for 2012-13 at Chanage -6200-16825 M and (3) M & R to protection of Karimganj Town from River Kushiyara at Deopur Ring Bund for 2012-13, K-4 vide Work Order Nos. (1) SEWR/ HKD/ C/S/2012-13/175/8 dated 29.10.2012, (2) SEWR/HKD/C/S 2012-13/171/4 dated 23.11.2012 by the Superintending Engineer, / Hailakandi W.R. Circle, Hailakandi and (3) No.KXJ/T-10/WO/M&R/Divn/2012-13/94 dated 05.01.2013 by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Karimganj.

¶30

It is the case of the petitioner that he has executed the aforesaid works to the satisfaction of the authorities and had submitted the bills for payment. However, no payment has been released to the petitioner despite several approaches.

¶31

The petitioners submitted several representations last being dated 04.08.2017 to the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Karimganj requesting to release the payment to the petitioner. However, no consideration has been made as on today. Therefore, it is submitted that the respondent authorities may be directed to release the admitted outstanding amount of Rs.2,91,532/- (Rupees two lakh ninety one thousand five hundred and thirty two only) to the petitioner.

¶32

Ms. Tinlung, learned counsel for the Water Resource Department fairly submits that she has no objection if the Court directs the respondent authorities to verify the claim of the petitioner and if found, admitted, may be directed to release the payment to the petitioner.

¶33

The respondents despite receipt of notice through their learned counsels on 21.02.2025 have not filed any affidavit which would indicates that the claim of the petitioner is undisputed.

¶34

This Court in several writ petitions being WP(C) 294/2024, WP(C) 268/2024, WP(C) 269/2024, WP(C) 266/2024 in respect of the same chainage of works but of different locations and districts in the State has disposed of all the aforesaid writ petitions with a direction to have verification with regard to the claim of the petitioner and if found admitted shall pay to the petitioners within a certain time line.

¶35

Having considered that the petitioner appears to have executed the work in terms of

¶36

Page No.# 4/4

¶37

the aforesaid three work orders, (1) M & R to protecting the area from Phanirbond to Dullabpur from flooding of River Shingla for 2012-13 (Breach Closing at Madanpur), (2) M & R to embankment along B/B of river Longai from Patherkandi to Nilambazar Ph-II (R/B) for 2012-13 at Chanage -6200-16825 M and (3) M & R to protection of Karimganj Town from River Kushiyara at Deopur Ring Bund for 2012-13, K-4 vide Work Order Nos. (1) SEWR/ HKD/ C/S/2012-13/175/8 dated 29.10.2012, (2) SEWR/HKD/C/S 2012-13/171/4 dated 23.11.2012 issued by the Superintending Engineer, / Hailakandi W.R. Circle, Hailakandi and (3) No.KXJ/T10/ WO/ M&R/Divn/2012-13/94 dated 05.01.2013 and considering that the respondents have not filed any affidavit disputing the claim of the petitioner, the Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to verify the claim of the petitioner and if found admitted to release the said amount of Rs. 2,91,532/- (Rupees two lakh ninety one thousand five hundred and thirty two only) to the petitioner.

¶38

It is ordered accordingly.

¶39

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

¶40

This writ petition stands disposed of in terms above.

¶41

JUDGE.

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Kamal Uddin Choudhury v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Uddin Choudhury v. the State of Assam and 5 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nabam Tagam Vs The Deputy Commissioner and 6 Ors.

Kitum Karga and Anr. Vs The State of Ap

Ngurang Apha Vs The State of Ap

Birendra Sharma Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Jitendra Nath Sarma and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sankar Paul Choudhury and 19 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.