Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010070402018 2025:GAU-AS:12239 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2359/2018 GANESH CH. DAS S/O. SURENDRA NATH DAS, VILL. GHORAMARA HATI, WARD NO.1, P.S. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, MUNICIPAL DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY. 2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER BARPETA ASSAM. 3:THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSAM DISPUR GHY. 4:THE CHAIRPERSON BARPETA MUNICIPAL BOARD BARPETA ASSAM. 5:BARPETA MUNICIPAL BOARD BARPETA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM, MR H DAS,MR. P TELI,MS P LEKHARU Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. N GOSWAMI Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 09-09-2025 Heard Ms. T Som, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N Goswami, learned counsel for all the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the resolution dated 21.06.2016 passed by the Barpeta Municipal Board, whereby, the application for exemption/relaxation of payment of the outstanding amount of the petitioner has been rejected. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that pursuant to the NIT dated 11.03.2015 for the market of bolder, stone, sand, soil, etc issued by the Barpeta Municipal Board, Barpeta for the period from 2015-2016, the petitioner was settled with the work, vide work order dated 19.03.2015 in consideration of Rs.11,80,001/-. The petitioner started the work in terms of the contract by collecting tolls within the Municipal area and a total amount of Rs.8,57,000/- has been deposited out of the total consideration of Rs.11,80,001/-. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the meantime, vide order dated 01.09.2015, the Divisional Forest Officer, North Kamrup Division, Rangia, the operation in respect of Nakhanda Mining Contract area, which was under the name of the Mahaldar namely, Shri Gunajit Nath was suspended. It is contended that petitioner collects toll for the market area within the Barpeta Municipal Board which include 2 (two) mahals, namely, Nakhanda Mahal and Saulkhoua Mahal. Since one of the two Mahals, i.e., Nakhanda Mining, area was Page No.# 3/6 suspended, the petitioner incurred huge loss and the work had to be stopped although the petitioner has invested a huge amount of money. It is contended that apart from the suspension/stoppage of the said operation of mining at Nakhanda mining area, due to unfavorable monsoon season, the petitioner could not continue the work. 5. Having faced with such situation, the petitioner has represented to the respondent authorities for relaxation of further payment of the required consideration. However, the respondent authorities vide resolution dated 21.06.2016 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for relaxation of the payment of the outstanding amount. 6. Ms. T Som, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the suspension of one Mahal from where the petitioner was collecting toll, the petitioner could not continue the work as per the terms of contract, as he was not able to collect the toll. The unfavorable monsoon season also added injury to the petitioner for which he could not continue the work in terms of the settlement. Even then the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 8,57,000/- out of the total consideration of Rs.11,80,001/-. Therefore, she submits that, considering the above facts, the respondent authorities ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner for relaxation of payment of outstanding amount. However, the respondent authority has arbitrarily rejected the claim of the petition ignoring the facts and circumstances attended in the matter. 7. Mr. N Goswami, learned counsel for all the respondents submits that suspension was in respect of only one Mahal, namely, Nakhanda Mahal and there was no suspension of any other Mahals and the petitioner was settled with Page No.# 4/6 the work for entire Barpeta Municipal area from where he had collected tolls. The petitioner has accepted the terms of settlement vide work order dated 19.03.2015 for a total consideration of Rs.11,80,001/-. Therefore, he is duty bound to deposit the remaining amount, i.e., Rs.3,95,000/- to the respondent authorities. He submits that there is no rule or regulations under which the petitioner would make a claim for relaxation of the amount of consideration. And as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 9. As noted above, the petitioner was issued with the settlement order dated 19.03.2015 allotting market/ parking places etc, to collect toll/tax/parking tax for the market of bolder, stone, sand, soil, etc pursuant to the NIT dated 11.03.2015 for the period of one year, i.e., 2015-2016, w.e.f. 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 in consideration of Rs.11,80,001/-. 10. It is noticed that the settlement/work order dated 19.03.2015 contains conditions, inter alia, that in terms of the value of the work order, 1/10 part of the amount shall be deposited by way of Bank Draft and a total value of the work order, 1/3 part will have to be deposited in cash. 11. It appears that the petitioner has deposited 1/3 part of the total value of the work and Rs.8,57,000/- out of total consideration of Rs.11,80,001/. 12. Record reveals that during the operation of the settlement for collection of toll by the petitioner, the Divisional Forest Officer, North Kamrup Division, Rangia Page No.# 5/6 has suspended the mining operation in respect of Nakhanda mining contract area which was under the operation of one Sri Gunajit Nath. The plea of the petitioner is to the effect that due to suspension of one of the Mahals, namely Nakhanda mining contract from where the petitioner collect toll in terms of the contract and due to unfavorable monsoon season, the petitioner incurred heavy losses. Therefore, the remaining amount of Rs.3,95,001/-, which is to be deposited to the Barpeta Municipal Board, may be relaxed or exempted. 13. Record further reveals that the respondent authorities have issued a notice to the petitioner directing him to pay the installment amount of the market of bolder, stone, sand, soil, etc of Barpeta Municipal Board within three days vide dated 25.05.2016. The petitioner appears to have represented before the respondent authority on several occasions for exemption/relaxation from payment of the balance amount which is to be deposited to the respondent authority. However, by an impugned resolution dated 21.06.2016, the respondent authority has rejected the application of the petitioner and directed to pay the remaining amount. 14. The petitioner having been accepted the terms and conditions of the contract vide work order dated 19.03.2015 pursuant to the NIT dated 11.03.2015 for the work of collection of tolls for the market of bolder, stone, sand, soil, etc of Barpeta Municipal Board is bound to adhere to the terms and conditions of the contract. Admittedly the petitioner has participated in the tender process by quoting an amount of Rs.11,80,001/ and the work/contract was awarded to him on such bidding. Thus, the petitioner cannot agitate that the balance amount be relaxed. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is entitled to any exemption/relaxation for payment of the balance Page No.# 6/6 amount for the contract in case of any eventuality. It is also noticed that the grant for seeking exemption/relaxation is not supported by any Policy/Rules/Notification which would have supported the claim of the petitioner for exemption/relaxation of the payment of the balance amount. Even if it is accepted that due to suspension of one of the Mahals and unfavorable monsoon season, the petitioner had incurred losses, same would be a sheer ill luck and destiny of the petitioner, which would not be a ground for exemption/relaxation unless the authorities by a conscious decision grant exemption/relaxation to the petitioner. 15. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that in the absence of any Policy Decision or Notification or Rules for exemption/relaxation of payment of kist amount which is required to be paid by the petitioner in the event of any eventuality, this Court is not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioner. 16. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I am of the considered view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner for granting exemption/relaxation from payment of the balance amount. 17. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. JUDGE Comparing Assistant