Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22664 (GAU)

MUSLIM ALI v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.

WP(C)/9351/2019 · 2025-06-17

Michael Zothankhuma

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010309072019 2025:GAU-AS:8105 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/9351/2019 MUSLIM ALI S/O LT. MAKBIL ALI, R/O SUNDARBORI P.S. JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI014, DIS. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (ROADS), DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (ROADS) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003 3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (ROADS) GUWAHATI ROAD CIRCLE FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (ROADS) GUWAHATI ROAD DIVISION GUWAHATI- Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DAS SR. ADV, MR P SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 18-06-2025 Heard Mr. P Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Public Works (Roads) Department (PWRD). 2. The petitioner has been awarded with a contract work “Repair & rehabilitation of Garigaon Majhar Sariff Road (L=0.80 k.m.) (from Ch. 0.00m to 800.00m) under “3054-NonPlan” for 2014-2015 by the respondent authorities. On being so awarded, the petitioner proceeded to execute the work and as per the claim of the petitioner, he has completed about 95% of the contract works till date. But, he has not been paid the balance amount of Rs. 55,82,120/-, for the works he has already completed. A number of representations have been submitted to the respondent No. 4, praying, inter-alia, to release the outstanding amount and for extending the period for completion of the contract, on the ground that there was some delay on the part of the respondent authorities in providing clear work sites in certain parts of the work area. However, no reply has been forthcoming from the respondents. 3. Mr. B Gogoi, learned counsel for the PWRD has submitted letter No. JTRD/CC-02/2025/668 dated 11.06.2025 issued by the Executive Engineer, Page No.# 3/4 PWRD, Jalukbari Territorial Road Division, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati, which states that the petitioner had already received a sum of Rs.67,68,287/- and that the outstanding amount payable to the petitioner stands at Rs.40,86,605/- and not Rs.55,82,120/-, as claimed by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as there has been an admission of the claim of the petitioner to the extent of Rs.40,86,605/-, the same may be paid to the petitioner and the petitioner may also be given the liberty to claim the balance disputed amount by approaching the Civil Court/Appropriate Forum. 5. The petitioner’s counsel also submits that he has obtained instructions that the petitioner would not like to press his claim for continuing with the contract work, inasmuch as, the respondents have till date not cleared the side of the road for continuing with the contract work. 6. The letter dated 11.06.2025 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWRD, Jalukbari Territorial Road Division, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati is made a part of the record and marked as Annexure-X. 7. As there has been an admission by the respondents that the petitioner is liable to be paid Rs.40,86,605/-, the same should be paid to the petitioner within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. The petitioner is also given the liberty to approach the Civil Court for making a claim on the disputed balance amount, if so advised, as per law. Page No.# 4/4 9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant