Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010207282024 2025:GAU-AS:12339 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5443/2024 M/S YUGANT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD PROPRIETOR- 1.YUGANT AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O SRI ASHOK KR. AGARWALLA, R/O A.T. ROAD, BHARALUMUKH, DIST- KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI-9, ASSAM PROPRIETOR , 2. SRI ASHOK KR. AGARWALLA, AGE-69 YRS, 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 RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 ASSAM 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BARPETA WATER RESOURCES DIVISION BARPETA PIN-781301. ASSAM 4:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BARPETA WATER RESOURCES DIVISION Page No.# 2/3 BARPETA PIN-781301. ASSA For the petitioner (s) : Ms. D. Angana, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Ms. R. Deka, SC, Water Resource BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 10.09.2025 Heard Ms. D. Angana, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. R. Deka, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the Water Resources Department. 2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.3,42,342/- which the petitioner has not been paid in respect to the work carried out by the petitioner in connection with the Work Order No.BWRD/Esstt-4/Pt- II/2016/3 dated 01.03.2016. 3. It is seen that pursuance to the issuance of the notice, the respondent No.2 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it has been categorically stated that the petitioner had been paid all dues in respect to the contractual work. However, the amount of Rs.3,42,342/- was the security Page No.# 3/3 deposit which the petitioner was entitled to. However, as the petitioner did not apply within the period of three years, the payment cannot be made to the petitioner unless and until there are orders passed by this Court. 4. Taking into account that the amount of Rs.3,42,342/- is the entitlement of the petitioner and it was the security deposit as admitted by the respondent authorities, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the respondent authorities were bound to refund the amount of Rs.3,42,342/- to the petitioner upon successful completion of the work. 5. Considering the above, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition directing the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 to take effective steps for release of the amount of Rs.3,42,342/- to the petitioner within the period of 6(six) months from the date a certified copy of the instant order is served upon the respondent No.2. 6. With above directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant