Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010261142022 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/397/2022 MONSUR AHMED S/O NAYEEM UDIN AHMED, R/O MAIZDIHI, WARD NO. 1, SETTLEMENT ROAD, DIST. KARIMGANJ, PIN 788712, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS (ROADS) DEPTT., DISPR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS (ROADS) DEPTT. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 781003. 3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (ROADS) CACHAR CIRCLE SILCHAR PIN- 788001. 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (ROADS) PATHARKANDI AND RATABARI TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION Page No.# 2/5 RAMKRISHNA NAGAR KARIMGANJ PIN- 788166. 5:CHAMED ALI EX-EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (ROADS) PATHARKANDI AND RATABARI TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION RAMKRISHNA NAGAR KRIMGANJ PIN- 788166. 6:GULZAR HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY C/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (ROADS) PATHARKANDI AND RATABARI TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION RAMKRISHNA NAGAR KARIMGANJ PIN- 788166. 7:THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA NEW GUWAHATI BRANCH BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI- 781003 For the appellant : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. D.J. Das, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. D. Nath, Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. A.T. Sarkar, Advocate for Respondent No.5 Mr. D.P. Borah, Advocate for Respondent No.6 Page No.# 3/5 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 11-11-2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondents. The appellant was awarded a contract for construction of a road under PMGSY-I, Package No.AS-13-278. He carried out substantial construction, completing approximately 5.3 kms road out of the total 5.43 km, which fact was never disputed. However, during the period when the pandemic had set in, the work had slowed down and by that time, the contract period had expired. It was the case of the appellant that despite several reminders to the respondents for extension of time for concluding the contract work, no order was passed. However, to the dismay of the appellant, sometimes in December, 2020, his contract was terminated, saddling him with a penalty of 20% and with a direction to cease the work immediately. This order was passed without any notice to the appellant. The order presumably was passed by an Executive Engineer and not Page No.# 4/5 the Chief Engineer, who was the only competent authority to pass such an order. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was contested by Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, that the power to take a decision in that regard had been delegated to the Executive Engineer. Nonetheless when the matter went before the Court, the learned Single Judge found no folly with the decision of the respondents in cancelling the contract of the appellant. However, on account of various startling facts having been brought to the notice of the Court by the appellant regarding the selection of a new concessionaire without indicating the portion of the work which was to be completed by him and release of a huge amount of money towards the bills raised by such person, without the work having been started by him, an enquiry was directed by the learned Single Judge. Pursuant to the enquiry, the allegation levelled by the appellant was found to be correct. The respondents in their wisdom recalled the cancellation order and directed the Executive Engineer to entrust the balance work to the appellant vide communication dated 07.08.2025. The Executive Engineer vide communication dated 19.08.2025 asked the appellant to mobilize his resources and intimate to the respondents about the date of resumption of work. The appellant now is in the process of mobilizing his resources and would make effective correspondence with the respondents regarding the date on which the work shall be resumed and the time span when it Page No.# 5/5 would be completed. In view of such decision of the respondents in entrusting the balance work again to the appellant, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant seeks to withdraw this appeal. Permission granted. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant