Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010309082019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/9371/2019 MUSLIM ALI S/O- LT. MAKBUL ALI, R/O- SUNDARBORI, P.S. JALUKBARI, GHY-14, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SPECIAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (ROADS), DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (ROADS) ASSAM CHANDMARI GHY-03 3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (ROADS) GHY ROAD CIRCLE FANCY BAZAR GHY-01 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (ROADS) GHY ROAD DIVISION GHY-0 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DAS SR. ADV, MR P SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 28-05-2025 Considering the subject matter in dispute and also the aspect 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. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is non-receipt of certain contractual dues. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was awarded the work of Repair & Rehabilitation of road side drain with Footpath at Garigaon Main Road (From NH-37 to Garigaon) (L=1890 m) under 3054 Non-Plan for the year 2015-16 under Guwahati Road Division to the petitioner vide final work order dated 18.11.2015. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that soon after he had started executing the work, he was confronted with various problems regarding encroachment in the work site which hampered the progress of the work. The petitioner contends that such difficulties were conveyed to the Department. However, without considering the same, the contract in question was cancelled on 08.09.2017 which was the subject matter of challenge in WP(C)/5946/2017. This Court vide an order dated 20.09.2017 however kept the impugned order in abeyance whereafter the petitioner was again handed over the site on 09.11.2017 and on 06.12.2017 and the order of cancellation was revoked. The petitioner claims to have not only re-started the work but had completed 80% without any payment and has raised a claim of Rs.1,57,57,442/-, the instant petition has been filed. Page No.# 3/5 5. I have heard Shri P. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PWD who has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 23.06.2022. The petitioner has also filed the rejoinder on 10.05.2023. 6. Shri Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his claim for the aforesaid amount is bona fide and for works completed by him in all aspects. 7. On the other hand, Shri Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that there is a dispute with regard to the quantum of work claimed to have been done. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraphs 7 & 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition which are extracted herein below:- “7. That with regards to the statements made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, the deponent states that the petitioner was allowed to restart the work w.e.f. 09.11.2017 and he has claimed that he has completed almost 70% of entire work till middle of the year 2019. But, as per office record there is no measured bill available in the Divisional Office. If the petitioner has executed works at site, it will be ascertained only after actual measurement which is yet to be done. In this connection, it may be mentioned here that, the jurisdiction of the work site is now under West Guwahati Territorial Road Division after re- organisation of Public Works Road Dept. vide notification No.RBEB.116/2019/Pt.-I/32, dated 06.11.2019 and as such PWD South Kamrup Territorial Road Division (Erstwhile Guwahati Road Division) presently could not submit the actual status of the executed work. 8. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition, Page No.# 4/5 the deponent states that physical progress 70% as claimed in the paragraph by the petitioner cannot be agreed without actual measurement.” 8. Shri Sarma, the learned counsel has submitted that since this matter is pending since the order 2019 and even if the stand of the Department regarding the claim is taken into consideration, the Department may be directed to undertake an exercise to carry out a measurement of the works done and thereafter make the payment. 9. In this regard, he has also referred Clause 42.2 of the Contract Agreement which is extracted herein below:- “42.2 The Engineer shall check the Contractor’s monthly statement within 14 days and certify the amount to be paid to the Contractor after taking into account any credit or debit for the month in question in respect of materials for the work in the relevant amounts and under conditions set forth in Sub-Clause 51 (3) of the Contract Data (Secured Advance).” 10. The rival submissions have been duly considered. 11. The claim is for certain contractual works. However, it appears that there is certain dispute on the quantum of the work said to have been done. At the same time, from the affidavit filed by the Department, it is clear that the allotment and performance of the work by the petitioner is not in dispute and it is only on the aspect of the quantum of the work. 12. Considering that this writ petition is pending since the year 2019, interest of justice would require this Court to pass an order by balancing the equities. 13. Accordingly, it is directed that the Department would undertake an Page No.# 5/5 exercise to make an assessment of the work executed which is to be done by consulting the Measurement Book as well as physical verification and thereafter, pay the admissible amount to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise is to be done by the respondent no. 2 expeditiously and within an outer limit of 2 (two) months from today. 14. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant