Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010093842025 2025:GAU-AS:5495 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2386/2025 BISWAJIT DUTTA S/O LATE RATISH CHANDRA DUTTA AR/O COLLEGE ROAD, P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR,ASSAM, PIN-788001. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM,PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, DIST.KAMRUP. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS) CHANDMARI GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR PIN- 788001 4:THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM 5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINER Page No.# 2/5 PWD ROAD CACHAR CIRCLE SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINER PWRD SILCHAR AND UDHARBOND TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001. 7:THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER SILCHAR (SADAR) CIRCLE SILCHAR CACHAR PIN-788001. 8:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWRD SILCHAR AND UDHARBOND TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN-78800 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T SK, MR. B J GHOSH,MR. I ALAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, GA, ASSAM Page No.# 3/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 05.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner had been selected for re-construction of Vevekananda Road and Drain cum Footpath including Box Cell Culvert (from G.C. College to India Club Point) of Ch.0.00 to 2200.00m) under Package No. SOPD-G-20-21-91 for the year 2020-21 pursuant to the NIT dated 12.01.2021. The petitioner was issued notice to proceed with the work on 29.07.2021 and accordingly the petitioner proceeded with the construction. Thereafter several inter-departmental correspondences were made between the PWRD and the District Administration, for demarcation and eviction of encroachers from PWD land so that the contract work could go on smoothly. However, vide the impugned letter dated 04.04.2025 issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD(R) to the Executive Engineer, PWRD, Silchar & Udarbond Territorial Road Division, Silchar, the contract work given to the petitioner has not been completed due to the delay in demarcation and public objection with the contract work. Vide the impugned letter dated 04.04.2025, the Executive Engineer, PWRD has been directed to submit the incomplete final bills of the petitioner and a fresh balance work estimate as desired by the local public, for onward submission to the Government for necessary sanction. Further, the Executive Engineer, PWRD has been asked to explore the possibility of completing the remaining works. 2. The petitioner’s counsel submits that non-completion of the contract work has been occasioned due to the inability of the respondents to make a Page No.# 4/5 demarcation and to remove the encroachers, who are objecting to the contract work. He submits that some portion of the land, on which the petitioner is working, belongs to the public and private parties. He submits that the petitioner has completed 80% of the work on the right side of the road, while 30% of the work has been completed on the left side of the road. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner is unwilling to do the contract work as per the earlier schedule of rates quoted by him in 2021 and that due to efflux of time, he should be allowed to complete the work as per the revised estimates/rates. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 11.04.2025 to the respondent no.6, praying that the petitioner should be allowed to complete the contract work. As the same has not been decided, the writ petition should be disposed of, with a direction to the respondent no.6, to take a decision on the petitioner’s representation dated 11.04.2025. 3. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam submits that as the contract work could not be completed due to non-completion of the demarcation and non-eviction of encroachers, the State Government has taken a decision to pay to the petitioner his bills for the works completed by him. He submits that as and when there is a possibility for completing the contract work in the future, a fresh NIT would be issued at the revised rates and the petitioner would also be allowed to participate in the selection process. The Additional Advocate General also submits that the prayer of the petitioner for price escalation cannot be accepted at this stage, as there is no clause in the conditions of contract agreement signed between the parties, for price escalation due to delay in completion of the project. Page No.# 5/5 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 5. On considering the prayer of the petitioner’s counsel that the writ petition can be disposed of, by giving a direction to the respondent no.6 to take a decision on the petitioner’s representation dated 11.04.2025, this Court accordingly directs the respondent no.6 to take a decision on merit and as per his discretion on the petitioner’s representation dated 11.04.2025, within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant