Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010302682019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/9161/2019 BIREN BURAGOHAIN S/O- LT. DHARMESHWAR BURAGOHAIN, R/O- RUPNAGAR, PIOLI PATH, P.S. PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI- 32. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY., HOME DEPTT., GOVT. OF ASSAM. 2:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY PWD DEPTT. GOVT. OF ASSAM. 3:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GHY.-07. 4:ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (SB) KAHILIPARA GHY.-19. 5:S.P. KARIMGANJ DIST. - KARIMGANJ ASSAM. 6:OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF PATHARKANDI POLICE STATION KARIMGANJ ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, MR. N G KUNDU,MR G DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 16-10-2025 Heard Shri P. K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam. 2. Considering that this writ petition is pending since the year 2019 and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 3. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is a First Class B Category Contractor in the PWD and was allotted a work vide a Work Order dated 01.03.2019. The site of the work was in the district of Karimganj which was under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana 2017-2018. It is case of the petitioner that he being a resident of Guwahati was facing threat from miscreants in the execution of the work for which security was necessary at the work place. Though security was provided, it was on cost basis and that action it also a subject matter of challenge. 4. Shri Roychoudhury, the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is not in requirement of any PSO, but such security is necessary at the work site. He has also submitted that the work is continuing. 5. On the other hand, Shri Nath, the learned State Counsel has submitted that the work was of the year 2019 and the tenure is already over. He has otherwise submitted that providing of security at the work place is only on payment basis Page No.# 3/3 and as per instructions received, the petitioner has also defaulted in making such payment. 6. The rival submissions advanced have been duly considered. 7. This Court has noticed that the work order dated 01.03.2019 annexed to the petition had provided that the time of completion was 9 months. More than 6 years have passed thereafter and accordingly, this Court is unable to accept the submission that the work is continuing. This Court is also not able to accept the submission that extra security has to be given at the cost of the State exchequer. In the opinion of this Court, such arrangement has to be on the payment basis which is the normal practice. Though the State is under a bounden duty to provide security to all the citizens, provision of special security of the present nature has to be on cost basis. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no existing cause of action. It is however made clear that if any fresh work is allotted to the petitioner and there is any threat perception, the petitioner can apply for providing security, which however has to be done as per the existing norms. The State would also be at liberty to initiate any proceeding for recovery of any default on the aspect of providing security at the work site to the petitioner. 9. The writ petition accordingly stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant