Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010170492020 2025:GAU-AS:8425 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5071/2020 NEZAM UDDIN S/O LATE MASTAKIM ALI VILLAGE KATABARI, PO NILAMBAZAR, DIST KARIMGANJ, ASSAM 788722 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING AND NH DEPARTMENT BLOCK B, GROUND FLOOR, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD NH WORKS ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 3 3:THE REGIONAL OFFICER MORT AND H RAJGARH. ROAD CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 3 4:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PWD GUWAHATI NH CIRCLE CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD KARIMGANJ NH DIVISION SUBHAS NAGAR ROAD PO AND DIST KARIMGANJ Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM 78871 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R TALUKDAR, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 24-06-2025 No one appears for the petitioner on call. 2. Mr. M Bhuyan, learned counsel appears for the PWD Department. 3. The petitioner’s case is that he had executed urgent special repairs on NH- 44 (old) from Ch.230/200 Km to Ch.247/000 Km way back in 2018 for the State of Assam. However, the petitioner has not been paid his pending dues amounting to Rs.65 lakhs. 4. The affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 & 5 on 21.12.2022 is to the effect that the payment for all executed works by the petitioner has already been paid to him, as per the work order and contract agreement signed by the respondent No. 5 and the petitioner. As such, there are no pending bills or liabilities outstanding against the petitioner. 5. Paragraph 4 and 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 & 5 on 21.12.2022 is reproduced herein below as follows:- “4. That with regards to statements made in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that as per instruction of Hon'ble Minister, P.W.D during his visit at Page No.# 3/5 site on 05/01/2018 and telephonic discussion with Chief Engineer, PWD (NH Works), Assam, one estimate for "Special repair for restoration of damaged stretches of NH-44 from Ch. 230/200 to Ch 247/000km, Ch 252/280 to Ch 258/000, Ch 260/109 to Ch. 261/761 km excluding Bridge Gap 150 m and from Ch. 271/000 to 273/000 for the year 2017-18 under PWD NH Division, Karimganj in the state of Assam" amounting to Rs. 208.00 lakh only was submitted to the higher authority vide Respondent no. 5 office letter no. KXJ/NH/TB-12/2013- 14/2172-75, dated 30.01.2018. But, unfortunately the said Estimate was not sanctioned and the Respondent no. 5 had to take up the repair works of the damaged stretches of NH-44 from 230/200 km to 247/000 km including some other damaged stretches of the road from Ordinary Repair (OR) for the rear 2018-19 and FDR (New) for the year 2018-19 by engaging different contractors. Accordingly, the following three number of works were allotted to the Claimant Contractor Nezam Uddin, S/o Late Mastakim Ali, Vill-Katabari, P.O- Nilambazar, Dist: Karimganj, Assam as follows:- (i) First and final work order no. CS/NH/KXJ/13/2018-19/1209 dated 01.09.2018 (ii) First and final work order no. CS/NH/KXJ/13/2018-19/1210 dated 01.09.2018 (iii) First and final work order по. CS/NH/KXJ/FDR(New)/2018-19/2750 dated 12.03.2019 The deponent further begs to submit that the payment for the executed works in respect of the aforesaid works that was paid to the Petitioner in due times are as follows:- Payment Details:- (i) Payment Voucher no.14 dated 20.03.2019 amounting to Rs. 967812.00 (ii) Payment Voucher no.15 dated 20.03.2019 amounting to Rs. 894691.00 (iii) Payment Voucher no. 45 dated 28.03.2020 amounting to Rs. 610041.00 It is pertinent to mention here that, apart from the aforesaid work orders, no other works allotted or extended to the Petitioner thereafter as per the office record of the Respondent no.5. Moreover, no contract agreement was signed between Respondent no 5 and the Petitioner for execution of any work other than the aforementioned 3(three) number of Page No.# 4/5 works. Therefore the petitioners claim is totally baseless and false. 5. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that as per the office record of Respondent no 5, no certificate was issued officially against any works other than those mentioned in paragraph 4 of the present affidavit-in-opposition to the Petitioner for execution of such works as claimed by the Petitioner. The completion certificate duly issued by Respondent no. 5 for the 3(three) number of works which were executed by the petitioner are enclosed herewith. It is pertinent to mention here that the certificate dated 26.03.2018 signed by Respondent no 5 in the name of the Petitioner does not reflect completion of any work where no Administrative Approval No., no Technical sanction No., no Work Order No., no Date of Commencement and no date of Completion was mentioned. Thus the claim of the Repairing works amounting to Rs 40.00 Lakh by the petitioner is baseless. Also, as per the office record of the Respondent no 5, there was no agreement between Respondent no 5 and the Petitioner and no work order was issued from the office of the Respondent No. 5 to the Claimant Petitioner except for those mentioned in paragraph 4 of the present affidavit-in-opposition. So, liabilities of another Rs 25.00 Lakh as claimed by the Claimant is baseless.” 6. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in their affidavit-in- opposition filed on 21.12.2022, which has not been controverted till date, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition cannot go into questions of fcts, if we are to assume that there are disputed questions of facts. The petitioner will have to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, where evidence can be recorded. 7. In view of the fact that the respondents have categorically taken a stand that all the dues of the petitioner have been paid, the present writ petition Page No.# 5/5 cannot be decided in favour of the petitioner. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner is not present, which gives rise to an inference that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the case, the writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant