Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010022742024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/750/2024 PALLABI SARMA WIFE OF SHRI, MANABENDRA SARMA, RESIDENT OF GANESH MANDIR PATH, HOUSE NO. 27, JOYANAGAR, GUWAHATI- 781022, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GMDA BUILDING BHANGAGHAR GUWAHATI-5 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GMDA BUILDING BHANGAGHAR GUWAHATI-5 4:THE CHIEF MINISTER'S VIGILANCE CELL ASSAM SWATANTRA SENANI BHAWAN RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI-2 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S P DAS, MS C BORA,MR A ALAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GMC, GA, ASSAM,SC, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 07.08.2026 Heard Shri S. P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GMC. Considering the facts and circumstances and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition which is pending since the year 2024 is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. Bereft of details, the facts as projected are that the petitioner who is a registered contractor was entrusted with certain works by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation. The works were accordingly done and bills were submitted. However, on the account of lack of signature of the Executive Engineer, GMC as reflected in the minutes of the meeting dated 19.04.2023 and 30.11.2023, the bills have not been cleared. Shri Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 2 & 3, there is a projection that the work in question is a part of the vigilance case and therefore on that account, the bills could not be cleared. He has however submitted that on a careful perusal, the file number mentioned appears to be a different work and not the work connected with the present case. He also submits that the bills were properly processed which contains the signature of the Junior Technical Officer. Shri S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GMC has however clarified that the file mentioned in the affidavit is the work order file in which, the same Engineer was involved, who was arrested in connection with the vigilance case and therefore the signature was not there and that aspect was taken into consideration in the minutes of meeting dated 19.04.2023 and 30.11.2023. He has also drawn the attention of this Page No.# 3/3 Court to the condition of the work order which requires the certification by the concerned Engineer. After considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, though it is seen that there is a requirement of certification by the concerned Engineer, in the instant case, the incumbent, who was holding the said post was arrested in a vigilance case. By that account, the petitioner, who otherwise has completed the work and submitted the bill cannot be made to suffer prejudice. The situation has to be taken care of by the Corporation by getting the verification done by a competent person who has now been posted in place of the concerned incumbent who has been arrested. This aspect is directed to be supervised by the Commissioner of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and the matter be resolved expeditiously and preferably within a period of 2 (two) months from today. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant