Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010304802019 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/9326/2019 MUSLIM ALI S/O- LATE MAKBUL ALI, R/O- SUNDARBORI, P.S- JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI- 14, DIST- 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- 06 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD BORDER ROADS AND NEC WORKS ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 781003 3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) GUWAHATI ROAD CIRCLE FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) GUWAHATI ROAD DIVISION GUWAHATI- 0 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D DAS, MR. P SARMAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, MR. B CHOUDHURY Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 02.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. P. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the PWD. 2. The petitioner case is that the petitioner was allotted a contract, for construction of a roadside drain with footpath at the Assam Engineering College Approach Road. It is the case of the petitioner that for reasons beyond his control, the work could not be completed in time. However, though the petitioner completed 80% of the work, the petitioner has not been paid all his dues. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner was paid Rs.1,15,00,320/- and the petitioner is still to be paid an amount of Rs.60,89,280/- 3. Mr. B. Gogoi submits that the petitioner’s work done was duly measured up-to December, 2014, wherein he had achieved 59% physical progress of the work. The value of the work done amounting to 59% of the work was Rs.1,15,00,330/- which was duly paid to the petitioner. However, the work between January, 2015 to February, 2016 that was done by the petitioner has not been measured, as per the records available. Further, the petitioner has not completed the entire contract work since February, 2016. Page No.# 3/4 4. Mr. B. Gogoi submits that the respondent will verify the work done by the petitioner contractor between January, 2015 to February, 2016 and thereafter pay to petitioner the admitted dues, in terms of the contract agreement. 5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 6. Paragraph-5 & 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.2 is to the effect that as on December, 2014, the petitioner had completed 59% of the contract work and he had been paid his bills accordingly. However, there was no measurement of the work done by the petitioner between the period January, 2015 to February, 2016. Further, the petitioner left the contract work “in standstill” position since February, 2016. 7. Paragraph-8 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.2 also states that the jurisdiction of the work site is now under the West Guwahati Territorial Road Division after re-organization of the Public Works Road Department, vided Notification No.RBEB.116/2019/Pt.-1/32 dated 06.11.2019 and as such, the PWD, South Kamrup Territorial Road Division (erstwhile Guwahati Road Division) could not submit the actual status of the executed work. 8. In view of the submission made by the counsel for the PWD, it is clear that a measurement/verification of the work done by the petitioner for the period January, 2015 to February, 2016 would have to be undertaken by the West Guwahati Territorial Road Division. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to Page No.# 4/4 verify the work done by the petitioner for the period January, 2015 to February, 2016 through the Executive Engineer, West Guwahati Territorial Road Division and if the petitioner is to be paid his dues as per the measurement done and in terms of the contract agreement, the same should be paid to the petitioner. The entire exercise should be concluded within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant