Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010204342024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5425/2024 ASHOK KR AGARWALLA S/O LATE SURAJMAL AGARWALLA, R/O A.T. ROAD, BHARALUMUKH, DIST- KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI-9, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, ASSAM 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 ASSAM 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BARPETA W.R. DIVISION BARPETA-781301 DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 4:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BARPETA W.R. SUB-DIVISION BARPETA-781301 DIST- BARPETA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P TALUKDAR, MS D ANGANA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WATER RESOURCE, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER 15.09.2025 Heard Ms. D. Angana, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. Sharma, learned State Counsel for the respondents. 2. By filing this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to release the security deposit amount of Rs.89,201/- in connection with the work of “Protection of Pampara, Pub-Mahachara, Kachumara,Alopati-Majerchar and its adjoining areas from the erosion of river Brahmaputra”. 3. The petitioner, who is a registered contractor under the Water Resources Department, Government of Assam had executed the work pursuant to the work order dated 01.03.2016 for Protection of Pampara, Pub-Mahachara, Kachumara,Alopati-Majerchar and its adjoining areas from the erosion of river Brahmaputra. It is contended by the petitioner that the amount of Rs.89,201/- is a balance pending liability for the execution of the aforesaid work which is yet to be paid by the respondent authorities although the same is admitted and undisputed. 4. Ms. Angana, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, although, the averments made in the writ petition is for payment of outstanding admitted amount of Rs.89,201/-, the said amount is a security deposit amount which the petitioner had deposited during the course of execution of the above work. She submits that since the petitioner has satisfactorily completed the work awarded Page No.# 3/4 to him and the defect liability period having been over, the respondent authority would not be permitted to withhold the security deposit amount. Therefore, she submits that the respondent authority may be directed to release the amount of Rs.89,201/- to the petitioner. 5. Mr. C. Sharma, learned State Counsel while referring to the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, submits that although the petitioner has wrongly projected the amount of Rs.89,201/- to be an admitted outstanding liability, same pertains to security deposit. He submits that the petitioner has to apply for refund of the security deposit within three years from the date of completion of the aforesaid work and on such application the department has to release the same if there is no any defect in the said work. However, in the instant case, the petitioner did not apply for release of the security deposit within three years and could not produce any demand before the concerned Treasury for release of the same. As such, until the petitioner makes an application, no amount of the security deposit could be released. 6. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 7. Admittedly, the amount claimed by the petitioner is a security deposit amount and not the balance outstanding liability in connection with the execution of the work of Protection of Pampara, Pub-Mahachara, Kachumara,Alopati-Majerchar and its adjoining areas from the erosion of river Brahmaputra. It is also the admitted position that there is no dispute with regard to the deposit of Rs.89,201/- as security deposit. Page No.# 4/4 8. Having considered that the amount of Rs.89,201/- is a security deposit amount and also considering that the petitioner has been denied the said amount even after completion of the work and there is no defect within the liability period, I am of the view that the respondent authority cannot withhold the said amount. Although the respondent authorities have submitted that since the petitioner has not applied for release of the security deposit within the period of three years from the date of completion of the said work, nothing is brought before this Court to ascertain whether the said requirement of three years for release of the security deposit amount is in consonance with any condition of the contract or any other law. In view of the above and after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner is entitled to the refund of the security deposit of Rs.89,201/-. 9. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent authorities shall release/refund the security deposit amount of Rs.89,201/- to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of application/demand. The petitioner to approach the respondent authorities by filing an application/demand for such release within a period of 15 days from today. 10. The Writ Petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant